# Apple Could Sell Sex



## georgelien (Nov 29, 2005)

Assuming there is one more generation of the Power Mactintosh G5, Apple could sell Sex G5s.

Microsoft already began shipping XBox 360 with tri-core Power PC G5 processors.

Quad G5 is basically a dual-processor dual-core G5 Macintosh.

A dual-processor tri-core G5 Macintosh could be referred as a Hex or Sex G5--depending on whether Apple prefers Latin or Greek--no racial remark intended.

Will it happen?

What do you think?


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 29, 2005)

I doubt it, the G5 found in the XBox 360 is a "lite" version of the one found in the Powermacs.  The underlying technology is the same (Power5 chipset) but completely different chips.


----------



## kainjow (Nov 29, 2005)

I think the Quads will be upgraded only once before they switch to Intel. When they switch to Intel, it'll probably be kept the same as dual dualies.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 29, 2005)

Yep -- read the thread entitled "XBox 360 PPC vs. Apple PPC" for some good reasons why you can't slap that tri-core PPC chip in a desktop computer.


----------



## g/re/p (Nov 29, 2005)

If Apple sold sex, they would probably include faulty prophylactics 
in the package - resulting in a class-action lawsuit!


----------



## ora (Nov 29, 2005)

Wow, Johnathan Ive designed prophylactics, what a thought!


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 29, 2005)

Hmm, I thought I was going to have to waste this thread at first ::ha:: but actually, things start to get slower when you keep adding more processors.  6 CPU cores might actually be slower than 4 because you then have the possibility of 6 threads trying to access memory all at once which can slow the system down.

It'd most likely have to be 3 physical processors with 2 cores each as 3 full fledged CPU cores on one CPU die isn't really easy to do and would make the die really big.


----------



## georgelien (Nov 30, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> things start to get slower when you keep adding more processors.  6 CPU cores might actually be slower than 4 because you then have the possibility of 6 threads trying to access memory all at once which can slow the system down.



If that's true, then why is Intel trying to sell the multi-core concept at its developer forums?

I'm sure the possible memory access issue you mentioned could be resolved through smart motherboard design.

Otherwise, Intel would have a tough time selling its multi-core processors to the world.


Regards,

Someone patiently waits for his 3GHz Sex G5


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 30, 2005)

Where does it say that Intel wants to put that many cores in one machine?  For super computers they don't usually have more than 4 CPUs per machine, although sometimes there's 8.  Then you only use the super computer for tasks that can be split up into many chunks and which the chunks don't depend on each other.  Video does well in this instance but some mathematical computations can't be split up as easily.

You can make it doable up to a point if you had that many processor cores in one computer but then you have to have huge bandwidth to the main memory which isn't doable with the cheap memory we have today.  Not to mention how having 8 threads trying to access the same data slows things down considerably because only 1 thread should access the same data at a time.

Things get complicated very fast when you start adding that many CPUs.

It might be worth it in some instances where you have millions of dollars to spend to build such clusters but for consumers it's not going to pay off to design such a machine.


----------



## georgelien (Nov 30, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Where does it say that Intel wants to put that many cores in one machine?



No where I guess.

Only that Intel had praised about the multi-core future at both the Spring and the Fall IDF, Intel Developer Forum, of this year, here in Taiwan.

If Microsoft's XBox could have 3 cores, I don't why PCs cannot have at least  the same--if not more--number of cores in the future?

Just a thought.


----------



## Mikuro (Nov 30, 2005)

He's not saying multiple cores = bad. Just that there are diminishing returns, the same way there have always been diminishing returns in multi-processor systems. You don't typically see 8-processor desktops, even though it's perfectly possible. Two processors can achieve real-world speeds very close to twice what a single-processor machine can achieve, but a quad-processor system probably wouldn't get so close to double what a dual would. The same goes for cores.

These problems probably could be addressed with smart motherboard designs, but it would probably be expensive. We want to blur the line between desktops and supercomputers performance-wise, but not necessarily architecture- and price-wise! 

I doubt it'll ever happen (at least not with PPC chips). Which is a shame, because it would be a marketing dream....


----------



## fryke (Nov 30, 2005)

Well, let's just make the _real_ move to 64bit as well as the real move to Quads - because right now only one (the high end) machine has more than two cores or processors. And I don't think it'd make much sense either. I guess they'd rather go 4 times dual core processors instead. About the memory thing with more than 4 processors/cores: You need good caching and good busses, but it's not really a problem and has been done for some time.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 2, 2005)

Huh?

I thought you were going to quote that article last week about people putting porn on their iPods. Very confusing title you got there.


----------



## georgelien (Dec 3, 2005)

ApeintheShell said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> I thought you were going to quote that article last week about people putting porn on their iPods. Very confusing title you got there.



Sorry, man.

What can I say, but sex sells?


----------



## fryke (Dec 3, 2005)

So you wanted to "sell" your thread, then?


----------



## georgelien (Dec 3, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> So you wanted to "sell" your thread, then?



It depends what you meant by "sell[ing]" my thread.




What I meant was to attract people into the thread, so they would buy into the possiblity of seeing a dual tri-core G5-processor Power Macintoshes in near future.


----------



## g/re/p (Dec 5, 2005)

"Free Money" works also!


----------



## hawki18 (Dec 5, 2005)

It all depend on how Intel memory controller is setup the AMD Opterion has a dual channel interface  equipped with two 72 bit wide DDR SDRAM channels. With a total of eight DIMM slots, this allows each processor to address 8 GB


----------



## georgelien (Dec 6, 2005)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> It all depend on how Intel memory controller is setup the AMD Opterion has a dual channel interface  equipped with two 72 bit wide DDR SDRAM channels. With a total of eight DIMM slots, this allows each processor to address 8 GB



Thanks for the info, hawki18.

See, people, it's possible.

^_^ Where is my Sex G5?


----------



## fryke (Dec 6, 2005)

Well: Nobody really expects IBM to further enhance the G5 for Apple now, and intel is talking about dual, quad and octo core processors for the future. So you'd still have to build one yourself (maybe drop some dead old processors into a dual box or something and paint "sex" on the case...). Dunno if that's enough for you, though.


----------



## georgelien (Dec 6, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well: Nobody really expects IBM to further enhance the G5 for Apple now, and intel is talking about dual, quad and octo core processors for the future. So you'd still have to build one yourself (maybe drop some dead old processors into a dual box or something and paint "sex" on the case...). Dunno if that's enough for you, though.



Now I really wish Apple would come out with one more Power Mac G5 line update with one of the models running dual-processor tri-core PowerPC G5.

Only then could I get a shocking face from fryke.


----------



## georgelien (Dec 8, 2005)

"allowing server designers to build systems with 16 and 32 processors."

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/no_mactels_still_mid_2006_and_what_of_amd/


----------



## fryke (Dec 8, 2005)

And you see that it's the power of 2, not six or three.


----------



## georgelien (Dec 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> And you see that it's the power of 2, not six or three.



Yes, but they are the number of processors, not the number of cores on the processors.

A Sex G5 would be a 2 tri-core G5 processors that also came in "the power of 2."


----------



## fryke (Dec 8, 2005)

I know what you mean. Just: The signs don't point that way...  Besides: I really don't think Apple would do it. And if, they'd _not_ call it 'sex', either.


----------



## georgelien (Dec 9, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> I know what you mean. Just: The signs don't point that way...  Besides: I really don't think Apple would do it. And if, they'd _not_ call it 'sex', either.



What sign?  There's no sign.

It's okay if Apple doesn't call it Sex G5, as long as we know what it is really is.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 9, 2005)

why, though?  why not dual quad cores?  why tri-core?


----------



## fryke (Dec 9, 2005)

He just wants to insist on his idea. There's not really an answer to your question, Lt. Maj. Burns.


----------



## georgelien (Dec 9, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> He just wants to insist on his idea. There's not really an answer to your question, Lt. Maj. Burns.



Good one, fryke!

The answer to your question, Lt Major Burns, is because IBM is already suppling tri-core PowerPC G5s to Microsoft and Sony to make XBox 360 and soon-to-be-released Playstation 3.

With that kind of sales volume, Apple should be able to get a decent pricing for the chip.

I want a Sex G5!


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 9, 2005)

But they're not full PPC 970 cores, they're stripped down so they can fit that many on one CPU die.  They'd have to shrink down to 65nm probably to fit 3 full cores in the same space.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 10, 2005)

they're not G5's, as captain code says.  they are all loosely based on the PPC architecture, but are by no means a G5 with all the Altivec instructions or cache sizes...


----------



## georgelien (Apr 12, 2006)

No Sex, but whatever Quad x 2 is should be the adjective of the next professional line Mac desktop.  Went to Intel's Developer Forum Taiwan, the chip makers plan to deliver quad core processors in the 2nd half of this year.


----------



## fryke (Apr 12, 2006)

erh... okay. so we have a very old thread revived. now you're for "octo"? M'kay...


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 12, 2006)

Just because I saw this thread on top again today and it was called 'Apple Could Sell Sex'

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/4/12/3567

Kinda funny.


----------



## georgelien (Apr 13, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> erh... okay. so we have a very old thread revived. now you're for "octo"? M'kay...



Yes, just call me the Reviver, which rythmns with revolver.


----------

