Apple just released G5 optimized version of their Pro apps, DVD Studio Pro, Shake, and Final Cut Pro. For those without G5s, they also introduced a Dual 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 at $2499, which is a good value compared to the Dual 2 GHz. 20″ iMacs round out Apple’s new product annoucments, just in time for the holidays.
Sell dual cpu computers is a good idea, I wonder why nodoby is doing it on the PC market.
can the p4 even do dual?
can go dual.
I think the Athlon XP can.
“Sell dual cpu computers is a good idea, I wonder why nodoby is doing it on the PC market.”
It has been done before on the x86… I use to have a dual celeron, dual PentiumPro etc. IBM use to sell an Intellistation with dual cpu. But it was never mainstream because Win3.1,95,96, etc. were not SMP able. So you will run WindowsNT, OS/2 or some other SMP able OS. Mind you this was before Linux bacame big.
On the PPC side BeOS was doing this with their Bebox and IBM has done this with AIX Stations for quite some time now.
Back to x86 dual Xeon are popular for servers, not necessarily for home pcs though.
Of course these are the facts outside the SJD-field, inside of the SJD-field no one has done this before Apple. 🙂
I would consider a Dual G5 but not to run OsX, rather YDL or some other robust and highly costumizable Linux. And then I rather buy it from IBM or even Pegasos and build it myself. I like the PPC platform since the AIX days.
The Xeon is rather pathetic compared to its Pentium 4 counterparts (or the G5). While the Pentium 4 now boasts an 800MHz QDR bus, the highest-end Xeon processors are forced to share a single 533MHz bus, meaning that when the bus is at saturation each processor is only effectively getting 266MHz.
Contrast this to the G5, which utilizes a 1GHz DDR bus even in SMP configurations…
“Contrast this to the G5, which utilizes a 1GHz DDR bus even in SMP configurations…”
No question about it, IBM’s PPC 970 is one impressive cpu!
I look forward to seeing it used outside of Apple channels.
Cheers.
The original Pentium could QUAD, so did the PentiumPro.
Pentium IIs were commonly sold in dual-cpu workstation.
a standard XEON is basically a dual-capable double price P4
Why does apple keeps comparing a 64bit processor (G5) to a 32bit one (xeon)? It is not even intel’s best processor. Why don’t they compare to dual Athlon 64? There are already pcs out there built on this one.
“Why does apple keeps comparing a 64bit processor (G5) to a 32bit one (xeon)?”
What is…because they wanna look good?
Seriously, I don’t know. I don’t think that Apple Marketing can be solved without the study of chemical substances that are taken and given by marketers. But in all fairness that applies to more companies besides Apple.
Also Apple gets a worst than deserve reputation becuase of some of the zeolots that push the “apple can’t do wrong” notion ad naseum. That is to say Apple has more respect for their user base[although not enough] than say some of the cheap salesman that post all that pink non-sense.
I for one am glad that we have options and that is not and all Wintel world. More than anything I love running linux on Apple boxes, becuase you get the best combination: the best hardware and the best software. replacing OsX with YDL does justices to those boxes, they have superb hardware.
Cheers.
There are companies that make dual CPU PCs out there, just not super common. The reason that causes companies to go dual is when they have hit a road block and can’t get anymore out of it or very small gains. That is what happened to apple with the G4s. They had to go dual since there wasn’t much left in the G4 and they were getting spanked by intel and AMD. It’s cheaper to have one fast cpu then multiple slow ones in most cases.
That being sad dual cpu’s are nice. And I think apple has latched onto them heavily for the marketing. From the days the G5’s were anounced I expected as they ramped up the speeds of them, apple will ditch the single CPU G5s, the dual 2 ghz becomes the base and they come out with a 2.2 and 2.4 dual G5 boxes by january/feb and put the single G5 in the iMac, and mobile model of the G5 in powerbooks. Then by 1 year from the first anounce ment of the G5 they can then go to 2.6 2.8 and 3.0 since they said they would be to 3.0 ghz in a year. The single G5s just didn’t seam like something apple was to serious about, and it’s just easier for them to make them all duals.
No, the original Pentium could not go Quad, not more than dual, and at that it needed a lot of glue logic.
The PentiumPro had the glue logic to go quad no problem. The pentium II had reduced it to dual, the Xeon version of the II had the quad ability.
Why does apple keeps comparing a 64bit processor (G5) to a 32bit one (xeon)?
Considering that the 64-bit addressing of the G5 is currently only utilized by a small portion of the OS X VM subsystem, there really isn’t much difference in how the processors are being utilized.
And regardless, the commodity market is still 99.9% 32-bit processors at this point in time.
It is not even intel’s best processor.
So? The PPC970 isn’t IBM’s best processor either…
Why don’t they compare to dual Athlon 64?
The “Athlon 64” is a marketing name for Clawhammer-core processors, which lack sufficient HyperTransport controllers to enable multiprocessor operation. Perhaps you were thinking of the Sledgehammer-core “Opteron”?
Regardless, AMD is still something of a bit player compared to Intel…
The “Athlon 64” is a marketing name for Clawhammer-core processors, which lack sufficient HyperTransport controllers to enable multiprocessor operation. Perhaps you were thinking of the Sledgehammer-core “Opteron”?
Um err actually no quite. The Athlon 64 FX-51 is SMP enabled. The “regular” flavor Athlon 64 is as you correctly stated not SMP ready. The jury is still out there when it comes to the coming Socket 939 Athlon 64s.
Regardless, AMD is still something of a bit player compared to Intel…
… and Apple isn’t? Yeah I know Apple doesn’t make CPUs but the small marketshare and the fact that the PPC970 is only available from Apple validates the comparison. Fact is, when it comes to marketshare in desktop systems then PPC is way behind even AMDs CPUs.
Of course these are the facts outside the SJD-field, inside of the SJD-field no one has done this before Apple. 🙂
Is/does Apple claim to be the first in this? There are many things that Apple can lay claim to having been first. But I am not sure this is one where they HAVE made that claim.
>> Fact is, when it comes to marketshare in desktop systems then PPC is way behind even AMDs CPUs.
perhaps we shouldn’t even be talking consumer desktops, but rather professional desktops where marketshare and price is not really a barrier for pros to buy apple, amd, or intel
Um err actually no quite. The Athlon 64 FX-51 is SMP enabled.
Really? I can find no information on AMD’s web site that corroborates this. Can you show me where I can buy such a system in an SMP configuration?
“Regardless, AMD is still something of a bit player compared to Intel…”
… and Apple isn’t?
Before you try to derail the discussion into a PC vs. Apple flamewar, just keep in mind that the original issue raised was the reasoning behind Apple’s comparisons between the G5 and Xeon systems…
forgot to say AND where the power is REALLY needed… not for games, but to actually get the work done…
the athlon 64 fx is just a rebadged opteron 210. It’s the same chip, hense it can go dual.
Sell dual cpu computers is a good idea, I wonder why nodoby is doing it on the PC market.
I am right now running Linux SMP on a Dell Precision 420 dual 933MHz Pentium-4 (I think P4), bought by my advisor three years ago.
all that is doing is using the Hyper Threading capabilities of the P4 to simulate 2 CPUs. the machine only has one CPU as the P4 is incapable of multi CPU systems.
It’s much more likely that’s a Pentium III system, considering the clock speed…
So you get your new iMac with a 20″ monitor (about $1000 separately).
When you want to upgrade your computer and use your 20″ monitor… you can’t do it.
You have to leave $1000 of monitor sitting on an old computer.
Even in today’s Mac universe, a 1.25Ghz G4 is an ancient processor, so its lifespan will not be very long.
Thus Apple forces the buyer to pay top dollar for non-upgradable equipment.
This is precisely the attitude that causes Apple’s declining global market share.
When will Apple realize iMac was a dumb idea and move to an iBox with a separate monitor? The iBox of course should also have an AGP slot and a PCI slot, similar to a Shuttle XPC, but built to match Apple’s other offerings.
Perhaps the rumors of the iMac form factor change presage the coming of the aluminum iBox.
Before you try to derail the discussion into a PC vs. Apple flamewar, just keep in mind that the original issue raised was the reasoning behind Apple’s comparisons between the G5 and Xeon systems…
I wasn’t trying to start a flamewar about a non-significant thing. I was just showing the errors of your statement.
As Brad said the FX-51 is a relabled Opteron 210 and you buy two of the FXs and a SMP Opteron motherboard and you’re set.
Since the Opteron is also aiming for the workstation market (besides the server market) why not compare the G5 to that one instead of the bandwidth-starved Xeon? The comparison would be fair since both the Athlon64/Opteron does the 64/32bit dance just as the PPC970 does albeit using a different ISA.
“So you get your new iMac with a 20″ monitor (about $1000 separately).
When you want to upgrade your computer and use your 20″ monitor… you can’t do it.
You have to leave $1000 of monitor sitting on an old computer.”
This is an AIO form factor. PC AIO “suffer” from the same problem so I don’t see what your point is.
“Even in today’s Mac universe, a 1.25Ghz G4 is an ancient processor, so its lifespan will not be very long.”
This is not true. This machine should run 10.4-10.6 just fine. G3/233s can run Panther now so I don’t see the G4 being incapaciated by MacOSX upgrades in the next few years.
“Thus Apple forces the buyer to pay top dollar for non-upgradable equipment.”
Don’t buy it or buy a G4 or G5. Problem solved.
” When will Apple realize iMac was a dumb idea and move to an iBox with a separate monitor? The iBox of course should also have an AGP slot and a PCI slot, similar to a Shuttle XPC, but built to match Apple’s other offerings.
Perhaps the rumors of the iMac form factor change presage the coming of the aluminum iBox.”
Apple has already done this, its called the Cube and was way ahead of its time. Maybe it will come back.
Brad (IP: —.stcgpa.adelphia.net)
the athlon 64 fx is just a rebadged opteron 210. It’s the same chip, hense it can go dual.
Opteron 210? There doesn’t appear to be such a thing as an “Opteron 210”
Chreo (IP: 212.181.42.—)
I wasn’t trying to start a flamewar about a non-significant thing. I was just showing the errors of your statement.
No, you were completely redirecting the direction of the conversation. Furthermore, you are yet to provide an authoritative source which shows that my statements were erroneous…
As Brad said the FX-51 is a relabled Opteron 210 and you buy two of the FXs and a SMP Opteron motherboard and you’re set.
This is blatently wrong. There’s no such thing as an “Opteron 210” for starters. I was asking for you to provide me with an authoritative source to confirm that SMP configurations of the Athlon 64 FX-51 are possible, and so far all you’ve been able to do is echo the blatently incorrect information posted by another.
Regardless of whether or not the Athlon 64 FX-51 is pin compatible with the Opteron, it seems fairly clear that the processor is not supported in SMP configurations by its manufacturer. I would like you to confirm that AMD has not placed lockouts on this processor similar to the ones found on the Athlon XP that prevent it from being used in SMP configurations, and furthermore that it is stable in SMP operation.
According to these articles:
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=260&PageID=2
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0
This would preclude SMP operation…
Since the Opteron is also aiming for the workstation market (besides the server market) why not compare the G5 to that one instead of the bandwidth-starved Xeon? The comparison would be fair since both the Athlon64/Opteron does the 64/32bit dance just as the PPC970 does albeit using a different ISA.
Can you point to a major OEM on the caliber of Apple who is manufacturing and selling Opteron workstations that are more or less comparable to the G5? From what I’ve found most companies offering Opteron systems are little more than no-name parts assembly services
Athlon 64 FX-51 has only one HyperTransport controller…
Err no:
Fact: FX-51 uses the 940 pin socket that the Opteron uses
The 940 pins are needed for the extra memory controller and the extra HT link.
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000253
From that article:
“The 940 pin Athlon 64 FX-51 is in fact a disguised Opteron at 2.2 GHz”
It was my error that I just rehashed Brad “210” figure without thinking. You are quite correct that there is no 210 but rather 240, 242, 244 and 248 Opterons (I knew that, my error). The Opteron 248 is running along at 2.2GHz.
Can you point to a major OEM on the caliber of Apple who is manufacturing and selling Opteron workstations that are more or less comparable to the G5? From what I’ve found most companies offering Opteron systems are little more than no-name parts assembly services
And this makes the Opteron a lesser workstation CPU how? The fact that Sun just made announcment should provide a hint. A CPU that is suitable for server is almost always a good workstation CPU too. For what may come, you get this: http://www.workstationplanet.com/features/article.php/11532_3077041…
Still that is in my book uncertain since nothing is announced yet.
Considering Dells special deal with intel and HP is codeveloping the Itanium with intel you really can’t expect them to pull out an Opteron workstation now can you?
No, you were completely redirecting the direction of the conversation. Furthermore, you are yet to provide an authoritative source which shows that my statements were erroneous…
Excuse me but the question was:
Why does apple keeps comparing a 64bit processor (G5) to a 32bit one (xeon)?
You answered that one fairly and correctly
Then in the same post answering the question “Why don’t they compare to dual Athlon 64?” you stated:
The “Athlon 64” is a marketing name for Clawhammer-core processors, which lack sufficient HyperTransport controllers to enable multiprocessor operation. Perhaps you were thinking of the Sledgehammer-core “Opteron”?
Regardless, AMD is still something of a bit player compared to Intel…
It was this answer I was correcting and putting the market penetration of AMDs CPUs in contrast to the market share of PPCs.
Do you agree that there are more Athlons out there in actual use than there are Apple Macs containing PPCs?
Mark this: I have in no way said that the PPC970 is a bad CPU. It sure is a nice step up from the G4.
You have decided to really start the flamewar, so I’ll byte.
The A 64 FX is the same as a Opteron 148. That CPU is not sold for SMP, but the 248 is.
On the last MaximumPC, the Dual G5 get its arse wiped by both the P4 EE and the A 64 FX51.
“Can you point to a major OEM on the caliber of Apple who is manufacturing and selling Opteron workstations that are more or less comparable to the G5?”
You still think that every piece of hardware in a G5 is custom and hand made for/by Apple? Please, is tiresome with the same thing.
A good OEM, Boxx Technologies (http://www.boxxtech.com), they have a excellent record, especially, in the customer support area (http://theinquirer.net/?article=10853).
Bye.
“Even in today’s Mac universe, a 1.25Ghz G4 is an ancient processor, so its lifespan will not be very long.”
I guess this is true if you feel you must have the latest and greatest of everything. I still have two iMac DV G3s. Both are running Panther.
Guess what? They run better and faster than they ever did under ANY previous version of OS X.
Guess what else? I can use Appleworks to write documents, I can use Dreamweaver MX to create my web sites, I can use Reason to make my music, I can use iTunes to organize my music, I can use Photoshop to edit my images, I can use iPhoto to organize my images, I can use iMovie to make my movies, I can hook up my iPod to my iMac and take my entire music collection (2000 songs and counting) with me…anywhere and I can surf the web with the world’s best and fastest Mac browser, Safari.
My system will only be obsolete when it keels over and dies.
“The 940 pin Athlon 64 FX-51 is in fact a disguised Opteron at 2.2 GHz” that’s indeed fact, but it’s based on the opteron 148, not the 248, atleast based on the price and info on many review sites, it’s indeed not capable of running in dual mode (atleast not officially supported). they both cost exactly the same, the 148 and the Athlon 64 FX-51. the 248 costing 200$ more apiece, so it wouldn’t be good for Opteron business to have the Athlon 64 FX-51 cost less than the 248 and be dual capable. and the difference between the Athlon 64 FX-51 and an Opteron is neglible, identical if you compare the 148 with it, and with one hypertransport bus less than the 248, the difference between the Power4 and the PPC970 well aren’t that close, so you could compare the Dual Opteron 248 with the Dual G5, or a single Opteron 148/Athlon 64 FX-51 with a Single G5.
Of course there are also the Opteron 140-149 which are uniproc “enabled” only.
The Opteron 14x series are true Sledgehammer cores not the Clawhammer ones
You beat me to it
True the SMP of the FX is not “officially” supported but that didn’t stop the people back in the Celeron 300 days now did it
And to MM: Please no flamewars. Go to /. for those.
Fact: FX-51 uses the 940 pin socket that the Opteron uses
Correct!
The 940 pins are needed for the extra memory controller
Correct! The Athlon 64 FX-51 is a Socket 940 CPU so that it can have dual memory controllers.
and the extra HT link.
Wrong! The Athlon 64 FX-51 has only one HyperTransport controller.
I provided two links which corroborate this. Can you provide *any* information that says explicitly that the Athlon 64 FX-51 has more than one HyperTransport controller?
True the SMP of the FX is not “officially” supported but that didn’t stop the people back in the Celeron 300 days now did it
In the case of the Celeron the actual mechanics of multiplexing processor usage was a function of the chipset. In the Hammer architecture, it is a function of the processor itself (at least with all motherboards that I’m aware of) Without a second HyperTransport controller, the Athlon 64 FX-51 is incapable of SMP operation…
“You still think that every piece of hardware in a G5 is custom and hand made for/by Apple? Please, is tiresome with the same thing.
A good OEM, Boxx Technologies (http://www.boxxtech.com), they have a excellent record, especially, in the customer support area (http://theinquirer.net/?article=10853).”
Well G5 case is made for no one but Apple, same with the motherboard.The notion that the G5 is really just a PC with a PowerPC 970 in it is false. Apple has always done R&D on everything they produce. The iMac motherboard is circular? Hardly qualifies as a standard PC part. We won’t evne get into the power supply or the cooling used on Macs.
BOXX? Heard of them twice, thats it. There are hundred of shops like these. Their cases are nothing special and just standard ATX. Eveything in these boxes are off the shelf. BOXX just slaps them together, nothing special and nothing that other PC shops don’t already do. They are a small operation thats been in business since 1996 and privately owned and seeking VC. Hardly by any stretch of the imagination a major OEM. Their address is to an office park in Austin.
Apple updated the benchmarks in the store to include the Dual 1.8GHz system and also the Dual 2.2 GHz AMD64FX-51 systems.
Bascule,
sorry about that. I was incorrect, I knew it was an opteron and botched the number. Looks like i’m not the only one who can’t get the right number either.
x86 makers don’t sell dual cpu systems because they’re
just a bunch of commodity shitforbrains that can’t utilize
a dual cpu system to its max extent. apple optimizes
their home written os for their hardware, oh how nicely
mac os x runs on dual processors, the microkernel
architecture is beautiful.
Windows XP Pro doesn’t really do shit for dual processor
computers, it’s not much better than having a single
processor really, want something good then go with
linux on smp x86.
want commodity, settle for less. heh heh…
but i must admit, those opterons are looking nice,
load one up with two opterons, dual channel ram,
and linux… you’re going to be beaming for
months from ear to ear!
>>Apple has already done this, its called the Cube and was way ahead of its time.
I too wish the Cube would make a comeback. Back when they were selling it, it came with OS9 (yuck), so nobody bought one. They need to resurrect it now. It was a 2004 computer unfortunately marketed in 1999. Look at this thing: http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Technology/Apple/G4cubeWDisk_1.html
It’s still drool-worthy today, still the best looking computer I have ever seen. What other 1999 computer’s design has held up that well? None. Certainly not the original iMac, which was jaw-dropping at the time but looks like junk now. The Cube was so far ahead of its time the market didn’t know what to make of it. Bring it back, Apple, I want one!
Here’s a site with cube, iMac, eMac, and tower pictures through the ages if you want to compare: http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Technology/Apple/
even the Cube posters are expensive.
I certainly want one if they are less expensive and powerful than the G5s…. which I really don’t think I can afford.
I could have a really fast computer with a crap operating system; Windows XP + Opteron OR I could buy a moderately speedy machine with a really good operating system; G5/G4 + Panther.
There is more to life than speed. I appears that there are a whole heap of people here who spend more time performing benchmarks than actually using their computer to do something remotely constructive.
Choclate, what you said is not just irrelevant to the argument, but irrelevant to the real world. Who said you need to run windows on an opteron machine? Additionally, your evaluation of windows xp can be said to be an opinion AT BEST!
As for the argument regarding PPCs and Opterons, I think it would be difficult to argue that any generic application would run better on the PPC compared to the AMD processor. The opteron is obviously a very fast processor and in its top of the line dual configuration, it seems to perform significantly better in benchmarks that I have seen.
I have used neither the opteron nor the dula G5, but from the information available to me, the AMD system is better.
Choclate, what you said is not just irrelevant to the argument, but irrelevant to the real world. Who said you need to run windows on an opteron machine? Additionally, your evaluation of windows xp can be said to be an opinion AT BEST!
Read what I have posted in the past then come back. I want a UNIX like operating system and what I am talking about is the NOW not the possible-in-the-future.
If FreeBSD 5.x for Opteron stablises, KDE3.2/QT3.2 progresses, Scribus and KOffice make progress then I will will move from the Apple Mac platform.
If GNOME makes a huge leap forward, which IMHO will, especially with all the commercial backing it is now receiving.
As for the argument regarding PPCs and Opterons, I think it would be difficult to argue that any generic application would run better on the PPC compared to the AMD processor. The opteron is obviously a very fast processor and in its top of the line dual configuration, it seems to perform significantly better in benchmarks that I have seen.
Of course the Opteron is fast, I never questioned that fact. What I am questioning is some peoples logic that place all the purchasing decision on one single factor rather than looking at the complete picture.
I have used neither the opteron nor the dula G5, but from the information available to me, the AMD system is better.
I’ve used a Dual Opteron and IMHO, it is VERY fast; this was using a beta distro release BTW. Opteron has alot more potential to grab marketshare off Intel who has put their whole house on selling the Itanium which is impossible to purchase motherboards and processors either from distributors such as Melco or even a large online reseller.
Osten, I think you’re right. I have a Cube, I’ve upgraded it to the hilt and it is still so cool.
Even setting aside the rumors about a new cube form factor for the iMac, I think there may be a good chance of it. Steve Jobs has always loved cubes and I’m sure it was a bitter pill for him to swallow when the Cube didn’t sell well (no niche for it at that time). But it does make sense for it to return, perhaps as the new iMac. The problem is cooling. The original Cube had no fan and was famous for its silence. But, Apple knew the day would come when faster processors and hotter graphics cards would be and put a bracket in the bottom where a fan could go. Today you do put one there is you upgrade the processor – you have to or it will fry. Even it is not ideal though as the handle on the bottom of the Cube blocks a lot of the airflow. Cooling is the big problem.
PowerLogix has just come out with a new enclosure for the Cube called the PowerCube. It doesn’t have the aesthetics of the original enclosure, buut has the right idea. It’s slightly larger, you can relocate the DC/DC board and has lot’s of venting. With it, you can use the highest upgrade processor cards made for the Cube without a fan even. So, perhaps they have the technical answer to the cooling problems…but not the aesthetic answr – leave that to Apple 🙂
Agreed Raven!
I too have older iMac DV 400/G3. 12 of them [I run a lab in grad school]. And 12 PowerMac G4/450s. And 3 iMac G4 700s. The newest machines I have are 4 eMac 1ghz machines. And they all run Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, XPress [in classic, ack!], Freehand MX, Dreamweaver MX, Flash Mx, Fireworks MX, Lightwave 7, Maya, Office v.X . And best of all, Jaguar, and in the spring, Panther – yes they all can run it fine, the test iMac DV runs it better than Jaguar.
Point –> The G4 is not a ill-functioning processor, either is the G3. They work, work well, and get everything done. Yes, faster is much more pleasurable and fun, and you can get a little more work done, but that does not mean that an older machine or processor is rendered non-functional when something new comes along, anly passé in certain peoples minds. They still work. They get things done as tools, as they should do, not just for themselves for the sake of speed.
BTW, I used to use Photoshop — every day in a real-life production environment — on a Mac IIci at a whopping 25mhz, and you know what, worked great, got my stuff done and I got paid a lot of money. You don’t need the latest and greatest to get work done. Just do your work.
“a standard XEON is basically a dual-capable double price P4”
With a much larger cache. Xeons suck which is why we have been buying serversw ith regular P4’s.