# Dual Core PowerMacs Tomorrow



## kainjow (Oct 18, 2005)

*Power Macs:*

Dual Core Single chip G5 2.0ghz
Dual Core Dual Processor G5 2.3Ghz
Dual ethernet jacks
Up to 16GB DDR2 RAM (loaded with 512MB?)
Nvidia 6600GT PCI-E with native 30" Cinema Display support
*PowerBooks*

17" PowerBooks have been dropped to $2499
Combo drive option on the 15" will be dropped, while maintaining a $1999 price point for the Superdrive option

They also tease there may be "one more thing", again 

Some anonymous user posted this to MacRumors. Unfortunately I can't post a URL, but the Power Mac specs have been "confirmed" by 2 anonymous people


----------



## Mikuro (Oct 18, 2005)

I thought the DC chips hit 2.5GHz. Was I wrong? In any case, a dual-core 2.3GHz chip ought to handily outperform a single-core 2.7GHz one. That is, for multithreaded processes. As with multiple processors, the extra core is not going to make individual "everyday" processes like web page rendering any faster.

It'd be nice if the new Macs were "just plain faster, period", but hey, I'll take what I can get.

16GB of RAM? *droooooooool*


----------



## kainjow (Oct 18, 2005)

I doubt the info up there is complete... maybe there will be 2.5Ghz.. we'll just have to wait.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 18, 2005)

remember that tiger can only use more than 4gb in command line:  gui apps can only use 4gb ram.  only the 64bit apps (command line only at the moment) can use 4gb+ ram.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 18, 2005)

Why would command-line make a difference in 64-bit compatibility or the amount of RAM they use?  I don't understand...

Mathematica, one of the most popular mathematical applications, is a full GUI program and fully supports 64-bit computations (and is a 64-bit application) as well as RAM usage above 4GB.

http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/platforms/

What would happen if I wrote a fully 64-bit "command-line application" that consumed more than 4GB of RAM, then added one GUI "Start" button to it?  Would it cease working?  Where did you get this information?


----------



## kainjow (Oct 18, 2005)

I'm sure it offloads the 64-bit work to a command line utility and then gets the results.. er something like that 

Or it uses non-standard methods of working with 64-bit numbers..


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 18, 2005)

There is no difference between a command-line application and a GUI application, with the exception of the GUI.  The source code is even the same... unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "command-line application".

They're all Unix processes -- one and the same.  The fact that one has a GUI and the other doesn't have a GUI doesn't change the fact that the source code is all written in the same languages -- C, C++, Obj-C, etc.  I'm just not understanding why adding a GUI would cause the application to not work.

What is a "non-standard" way of working with a 64-bit number?  You either have a 64-bit number, or you don't.  You could possibly simulate a 64-bit number with two or more 32-bit numbers, but then you'd have two or more 32-bit numbers and your application wouldn't be 64-bit.  You add, multiply, divide and subtract them, and that's all you can do to them...


----------



## kainjow (Oct 18, 2005)

I think it's mostly a speed issue. You might want to read this: http://developer.apple.com/macosx/64bit.html


> It is important to note that in Tiger, the support for 64-bit programming does not extend throughout the entire set of APIs available on Mac OS X. Most notably, the Cocoa and Carbon GUI application frameworks are not ready for 64-bit programming. In practical terms, this means that the "heavy lifting" of an application that needs 64-bit support can be done by a background process which communicates with a front-end 32-bit GUI process via a variety of mechanisms including IPC and shared memory.


----------



## Veljo (Oct 18, 2005)

Sounds good to me.

I'm more interested in the new Powerbook though


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 18, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> I think it's mostly a speed issue. You might want to read this: http://developer.apple.com/macosx/64bit.html


Ah, that makes more sense... thanks for clearing that up!

I had no idea -- I knew all along that Mac OS X was only partly 64-bit, but I didn't realize that none of the GUI elements could support 64-bit.

What I was describing earlier (making a command-line app and slapping a GUI on it) is exactly what they describe in that document... but is probably not the most efficient way of doing things!


----------



## ksv (Oct 18, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> They're all Unix processes -- one and the same.  The fact that one has a GUI and the other doesn't have a GUI doesn't change the fact that the source code is all written in the same languages -- C, C++, Obj-C, etc.  I'm just not understanding why adding a GUI would cause the application to not work.



64 bit GUI applications are multithreaded; they use two or more processes and utilize interprocess communication techniques. One of the processes is the 32 bit GUI, the others can be instances of a 64 bit backend.

The Cocoa frameworks are compiled 32 bit binaries and therefore can't be linked with 64 bit binaries. I guess that'll change with 10.5 8)


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 19, 2005)

i am completely and totally wrong.  i retract that statement.  i got told that.... i don't know where from, that tiger wasn't true 64bit.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 19, 2005)

No, that's correct -- Tiger is not a fully-implemented 64-bit system, it's just some of the libraries are 64-bit and the rest is still 32-bit code... and you were also right in saying that no GUI application can be fully 64-bit (it has to be a 32-bit GUI on top of 64-bit utilities, and those 64-bit utilities must be called from the GUI and the results passed through communication lines to the 32-bit GUI).


----------



## lurk (Oct 19, 2005)

Actually I think you have that backwards.  Tiger as an OS is a fully implemented 64-bit system, it is just that some of the libraries (like the GUI libraries) are only available in 32  bit versions.  

This really is just a pissing contest, my old ultrasparc (running 64 bit Solaris) was running 98.437% 32 bit programs - including the GUI - and nobody claimed that it was not fully 64 bit.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 19, 2005)

so where are they? it's wednesday.


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

Event supposedly starts at 12PM EST


----------



## garymum4d (Oct 19, 2005)

Apple stores are down!!!!


----------



## MacFreak (Oct 19, 2005)

Anyone know where Live News?


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000383064083/

Power Mac G5 Quad


----------



## MacFreak (Oct 19, 2005)

About time! That can support up to 16 gb rams!


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

More live coverage http://applexnet.com/


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

Event over. Apple store is up


----------



## Mikuro (Oct 19, 2005)

I don't appreciate their calling the single-processor models "dual" and the dual-processor model "quad". But whatever, that's marketing.

I'm suprised that _only_ the high-end model is a dualie now. That means the 2.3GHz single-processor model is just plain slower than the version it replaced, the dual 2.5. Maybe it's cheaper, though (I forget the pricing before).

Edit: Am I the only who thinks it's downright laughable that the lean, mean, "quad" G5 comes with the same amount of standard RAM as the Mac mini? C'mon like _anyone_ who's in the market for such a powerful system would ever manage with 512MB....


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

I wouldn't say the dual-core 2.3Ghz is slower then a dual processor 2.5Ghz.. Dual core is more efficient then dual processor... I'd say it'd be a tie or the DC 2.3Ghz is slightly faster.


----------



## MacFreak (Oct 19, 2005)

Initial updates from the Media Event in New York today.

- Upgrades to the 15" and 17" PowerBooks.
- 15" gets a new display with 1440 x960 resolution, while the 17" will get 1680 x1050. Both will be brighter thanprevious models and have better battery life.
- SuperDrives will be standard and all will support Apple's 30" Cinema HD Display
- Prices start at $1,499 for 12", $1,999 for 15" and $2,499 for 17".
- Powerbooks ship today

- PowerMac G5s updated
- Dual core processors, up to 16GB of DDR2 RAM, 1TB of internal storage, PCI Express
- Four new nVidia cards, including the Quadro FX 4500 - all four cards support 30" cinema display - PowerMac G5 Quad, with dual dual-core processors
- Single dual-core 2.0 GHz CPU version is $1,999; single dual core 2.3Ghz is $2,499; dual CPU dual-core is $3,299

- 23" and 30" cinema displays drop in price, 23" down to $1,299, 30" down to $2,499

- Aperture - post-production tool for photographers
- Built for pro photographers, provides end-to-end RAW workflow
- Feature called Stacks allows photos to be grouped together based on the time between shutter clicks
- Full screen workspace, can span multi-image displays
- Multi-image viewer to check images side-by-side, up to 10 at a time
- Standard tools like red-eye reduction; cropping etc. Non-destructive workflow and versioning capabilities


----------



## Captain Code (Oct 19, 2005)

Stange that the middle model isn't a quad too..  
Each core has it's own 1MB L1 cache so that should help with any bottlenecks that other dual core cpus have.


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2005)

Oh well... :/


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 19, 2005)

what's up fryke?  it was a speedbump.  powerbooks are improved too.  you knew the books weren't geting any faster.  living proof of the need to switch to intel.


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2005)

Can't I still be a bit disappointed? I mean: I could've gone on and on about how for anything but the highend PowerMac, this was actually a DOWNGRADE, but I just said "Oh well" to it. That must be enough.

The PowerBooks should be in another thread. There I _don't_ say "Oh well", because a) they weren't so old before the update and b) the update is a welcome one. Only the 12" PowerBook is definitely ripe to be replaced.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 19, 2005)

fair enough


----------



## Viro (Oct 19, 2005)

*sigh*

The Powerbooks were basically untouched. Oh well, that means that my 12" 1.33 GHz isn't outdated so soon.


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

iBooks are so much better value anyways


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 19, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> The Powerbooks were basically untouched. Oh well, that means that my 12" 1.33 GHz isn't outdated so soon.



The powerbooks were just slimmed down and trimmed, no more Combo-Drive's apple realize's that DVD burning (Superdrives) are the thing, instead of 5 models of Powerbooks to choose, it's 3, making things a lot easier on the consumer, and makes my powerbook very outdated  ::ha::  ::ha::  ::ha::


----------



## mdnky (Oct 19, 2005)

I so want a quad...[drool]...guess it's time to look over the budget again and try to figure out some way to do it.

2.5GHz Quad-core PowerPC G5
1GB 533 DDR2 Non ECC SDRAM- 2x512
250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 256MB SDRAM
Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)
Bluetooth Module + AirPort Extreme Card
16x SuperDrive DL (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse - U.S English
$4277


----------



## Mikuro (Oct 19, 2005)

Does anyone know for sure if the quad model uses a liquid cooling system like the old high-end models? I don't see any mention of it on Apple's site. I hope they managed to do away with it.


----------



## Captain Code (Oct 19, 2005)

It doesn't look like they've updated any of the info on their website yet.  There's still mention of the dual 2.7


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

It's updated... might want to try a forced refresh?


----------



## Veljo (Oct 19, 2005)

It's a dual 2.5GHz..............and there's an option of a 512MB video card!!


----------



## mindbend (Oct 19, 2005)

And not just a 512MB card, but a real workstation card, the first we've had on the Mac. The 3D people should be ecstatic. And I don't mean the gamers.

I'm already thrilled with Motion on a Dual 2.7 with a stock video card. I imagine Motion on a Quad G5 with the high end card will be a full 100% performance increase if not more. Many production facilities could justify the price of a new box for that alone. Not me unfortunately, I'll keep grinding along until the IntelMacs come out, but it looks like a solid upgrade given the fact that it's a dead end for the G5 as we know it.


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2005)

Looking around www.apple.com/powermac I see my fears come true. It's the highend model that gets advertised. Even Apple knows nothing about the middle and entry level machine they could tell. All the charts only compare the new 4x2.5 to the old 2x2.7 and the very old 2x1.42 G4. The other new machines are nowhere to be seen. I mean: I agree that the Quad is a real beast and I'd sure love to have one around for the occasional E-Mail writing session (I do Photoshop, but currently, my PB has enough oomph and I love to work in different places, so a PM is not for me, really...), but they _should_ have offered a better 'middle' machine. I personally think people should have the real choice, so they could choose an even cheaper 1 single core 2 GHz processor up to the 4x2.5 GHz machine. I know, too many configurations mess up logistics and stuff, but this just doesn't seem right...

I'm really looking forward to real life tests that put the old 2x2.7 against the new 2x2.3 machine... Apple still prices the old machine higher than the new middle.


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

fryke check out this: http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/


----------



## Captain Code (Oct 19, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> It's updated... might want to try a forced refresh?



OK, it is now but when I checked earlier in the day it wasn't even after the announcment.


----------



## Captain Code (Oct 19, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> fryke check out this: http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/



LOL, look at the size of the heatsink!


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2005)

About as I expected. You see: "Marginally better" for me does not mean that this is a real update. (The quad's an exception, of course.) ...


----------



## kainjow (Oct 19, 2005)

Why does every update have to be a major one? 

Apple never signed an agreement with you saying that everytime they release new products, you'll be impressed beyond your wildest dreams.

If they had dual core, dual processor across the entire line, prices would be jacked up and people would complain more about the prices.... 

And blame IBM for not being able to get beyond 2.5Ghz in Dual cores.. not Apple


----------



## Veljo (Oct 19, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> About as I expected. You see: "Marginally better" for me does not mean that this is a real update. (The quad's an exception, of course.) ...


I do think this is a great update, as there's options of 512MB VRAM, 16GB RAM, dual Gigabit ethernet and more. Plus I do think in the real world these dual core chips would smash the old systems.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 19, 2005)

Veljo said:
			
		

> I do think this is a great update, as there's options of 512MB VRAM, 16GB RAM, dual Gigabit ethernet and more. Plus I do think in the real world these dual core chips would smash the old systems.



Don't forget about the available 1 Terabyte of Harddrive space


----------



## NarutoSasuke (Oct 20, 2005)

I hadn't seen this mentioned anywhere, but according to the Power Mac page and under the "optional Graphics Card" area it says, "GeForce 7800 GT". I'VE BEEN WAITING!! That has gotta be the second best graphics card on the market right now and it's going to rock when it comes out for the Mac. That's so totally awesome. the Quadro is mainly for 3D imaging, CAD, and stuff like that right?


----------



## Veljo (Oct 20, 2005)

The only problem is the price tag, meaning only hardcore digital imagers or similar will ever buy this, and not the regular home user, who would opt for the iMac G5 or something similar.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 20, 2005)

Which is perfectly in-line with whom they are targeting...pro users.  Home users are not the ones being targeted with the quad.


Something to mention:  When you're in the store page for the G5, on the right side there's a link saying "Still need PCI-X".  If you click that you can sill order the previous top of the line (single core dual 2.7) for $2799.  

As far as graphics cards...I would have liked to see the new ATI x1800 that was just released ...then again that's me (not an NVIDIA fan).  <G>

--Add--

Definitely like the dual e-net thing...means I can still connect to the internet & LAN via a wire and also connect my test station running Windows (RDC control via Mac) without exposing it to the internet/LAN or adding a add-on card.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 20, 2005)

i personally like the potential of 8 30" cinema displays.  not that i have the money for it, mind.


----------



## Mikuro (Oct 20, 2005)

Actually, you can't hook up eight 30-inchers. From the footnotes on Apple's G5 page:





> Eight 20-inch or 23-inch Apple Cinema Displays can be connected to the Power Mac G5 using four NVIDIA GeForce 6600 graphics cards.


I wonder if a single person will actually hook up eight monitors to their G5. I'm sure it'd be a great workout for your mousing arm, but it's hard to image it being very practical.


----------



## fryke (Oct 20, 2005)

Hm. I'd take three 30"ers in the center and a 23" on each side. Five monitors sounds like more or less enough for a workstation. "More mileage for your Mighty Mouse" could be a slogan for such an extended desktop.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 20, 2005)

for watching movies in 43:9


----------



## NarutoSasuke (Oct 20, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> for watching movies in 43:9



LOL, that was a pretty good one, I can't see anyone using that much space on the desktop, that's a whole lot of space. That's also a whole lot of $$ too. But, with that quad, you could open up like 50-60 program and just have fun!!


----------



## texanpenguin (Oct 21, 2005)

What is this "Stereo-in-a-window" thing they mention?

Google tells me it's a Linux/Irix OpenGL thing, but what precisely IS it?


----------

