Qaud G4 Towers on the way?

V

vitaboy

Registered
Macosrumors.com recently posted this interesting tidbit

"One very interesting new development is a growing belief that Apple may be ready to unleash Quad Processors on us, with the help of the new memory bus and PPC 7470 chips. If true, this alone could signify an entirely new era in Mac performance, and could create a class of pro machine that can truly outclass anything the Wintel world has to offer, once it matures. We'll be keeping a close eye on this one."


They don't actually say whether this bit of info comes from one of their sources, but rather gives a vague "if this is true" qualification.

But even if Apple announces new towers using 1.5 GHz [CORRECTED] G4 (which is unlikely in my opinion) later this month, I'm of the sentiment that Apple needs nothing less than a quad-processor tower with a modern subsystem in order to prevent their desktop sales from imploding in the next quarter as pro users become unable to resist the siren call of 3.0 GHz PCs.

This is what I'd like to see with the new towers (note this is just my wishful thinking/hopeful guess):

"Fast" Configuration:
--------------------------
1.0 GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 Cache
2 MB L3 Cache
256 MB PC2100 DDR
60 GB Ultra ATA Drive
Combo Drive
ATI Radeon 9000
56K Internal Modem
$1,499.00


"Faster" Configuration:
-----------------------------
Dual 1.2 GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 Cache
2 MB L3 Cache
512 MB PC2700 DDR
80 GB Ultra ATA Drive
SuperDrive
ATI Radeon 9000
56K Internal Modem
$2,099.00


"Fastest" Configuration:
------------------------------
Dual 1.4 GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 Cache
2 MB L3 Cache
512 MB PC2700 DDR
100 GB Ultra ATA Drive
SuperDrive
NVIDIDA GeForce4 Ti
56K Internal Modem
$2,799.00

"Ultimate" Configuration:
------------------------------
Quad 1.4 GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 Cache
3 MB L3 Cache
1.5 GB PC2700 DDR
2x100 GB Ultra ATA Drive
SuperDrive
NVIDIDA GeForce4 Ti w/128 MB
56K Internal Modem
$3,499.00


All the machines would feature the usual standard features with regards to networking and ports. The pricing might be optimistic, but I think Apple needs to start acting more aggressive on that front. But I think the pricing for this hypothetical hardware would make things interesting again.

Thoughts? Comments?
 
Originally posted by vitaboy
Macosrumors.com recently posted this interesting tidbit

"One very interesting new development is a growing belief that Apple may be ready to unleash Quad Processors on us, with the help of the new memory bus and PPC 7470 chips. If true, this alone could signify an entirely new era in Mac performance, and could create a class of pro machine that can truly outclass anything the Wintel world has to offer, once it matures. We'll be keeping a close eye on this one."
Click to expand...

What sort of application available on the consumer market would be able to utilize such a beast?

Why would I invest in an Apple (AIM) quad system when Intel or AMD already make faster and cheaper chips?

How would Apple enter a market whos needs are already being met by other manufacturers?
 
Originally posted by pezagent


What sort of application available on the consumer market would be able to utilize such a beast?
Click to expand...

FinalCut Pro, Maya, iMovie, iTunes, MacOS X, Photoshop, DVD Studio Pro, and any other respectible graphics or video program.

Going from a single 500MHz G4, to a dual 500MHz G4, you can see a big speed boost in the OS as well as the above apps. So, imagine how fast a quad G4 system would be.
 
Originally posted by devonferns


FinalCut Pro, Maya, iMovie, iTunes, MacOS X, Photoshop, DVD Studio Pro, and any other respectible graphics or video program.

Going from a single 500MHz G4, to a dual 500MHz G4, you can see a big speed boost in the OS as well as the above apps. So, imagine how fast a quad G4 system would be.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the dual G4s get their buts kicked by the dual AthlonXP 2100... so if you're laying out the extra moola for a quad system that still underperforms AMD or Intel, what's the point?
 
A quad system would outperform a dual AMD system easily - in special tasks. It would be important a) for Macintosh customers (prosumers) who just want the BEST and b) for the image of Apple (we make the best desktop UNIX workstation in the world [true or not, it's marketing, Intel also says their Pentium4 processors accelerate the internet]).
 
I don't know anyting technically about multiple cpus but wouldn't it be better (cheaper) if Apple uses more advanced (G5?) cpus instead of quad systems?
IMO quad cpu systems should be for the times when you can't make better, more efficient cpus. What do you think?
 
I agree, bunging 4 processors into a machine isn't a sign of a company confident of winning a processor race. But, with Motorola truly messing up Apple's prospects, 4 processors are better than 2, are better than 1:D

As for pezagent, do we have another PC protaganist in our mists?

As devonferns states 'because it's a Mac'...

I would rather be on the lowest configured Mac capable of running OSX than the fastest flavour of a PC chip running 98, 2000, or XP;)
 
Quad G4s won't make most of my computing tasks faster than dual G4's would. The problem is that most of my tasks are not parallel.

However, the pure geek appeal of a quad machine might be enough to move apple back to the "if I was going to buy right now this would be it" list.

I used to use a quad Pentium Pro 200 system that ran linux. Even though I when I stopped using it 800 mhz of Pentium power was a lot, the experience was far worse than a real 800 mhz machine. Rendering a web page, for example, isn't a parallel task. In most of what I do, each operation depends on the previous operation. SMP machines don't excel at tasks like that.

On the other hand, they do a nice job of playing iTunes while you surf. :)

Vanguard
 
Quad processors wont happen because OSX isn't ready for it yet. If you have doubts open your terminal and type: hostinfo. The Darwin kernel is updated for supporting only 2... at this point, even Jaguar isn't updated for more than 2. Sure, its possible for an update, but I doubt this. I agree with the above post that a Quad machine isn't a good sign to deal with the performance issues there. We need a faster chip and a better system achitecture, not more short term shortcuts.

my 2 cents...
 
Quad CPUs by themselves wouldn't give a big performance boost. But, Apple would have to add faster RAM and system bus to take advantage of more CPUs, which would give a significant performance boost.

As for OS X not supporting it, it's not hard for Apple to compile it to support 4, 8, etc. CPUs.
 
Originally posted by vitaboy

But even if Apple announces new towers using 1.5 MHz G4 (which is unlikely in my opinion)
Click to expand...

Indeed, 1.5 MEGAHERTZ is more then unlikely, lollll :D


Quad-G4 would be sooo cool
 
heh, ML, I never noticed....that would be a nice step:D

At some time I'll buy another computer, and if Macs aren't up to speed and down to price at that point I'll give Apple the finger and buy a PC. I don't need iTunes, no matter how nice it is. MusicMatch could replace it. I can no longer justify buying a Mac as Apple being a nice company, the late takeovers and the removal of iTools just pissed me off too much to do that...

In short, I don't care what they do as long as it's DONE, cause the next time I have $2000 I'm looking at speed vs. price with no special treatment of Apple.
 
I'll see the evolution of the mac platform and it's hardware but if it really goes as not supporting OS 9 anymore at all and keeps it's hardware no better, I think I might just switch to PC as I am looking into games mostly, this wouldn't bother too much, except I really hope Apple pulls some good hardware in the near future and at least if they totally drop OS 9 support that the apps and games will be updated soon.


w00t, what a big sentence, lol :D

P.S: I like Apple
 
Originally posted by MacLegacy


Indeed, 1.5 MEGAHERTZ is more then unlikely, lollll :D


Quad-G4 would be sooo cool
Click to expand...

Heheh, oops! Naturally, I meant 1.5 GIGAhertz. :p

In any case, although we may never see a quad-G4 machine, I'm worried about a disturbing change in the position of Apple hardware. Apple at least used to be able to claim Macs were faster in certain operations than higher clocked PCs. But we're now getting to the point where the processor gap between Motorola's G4 and the AMD and Intel chips is getting SO large that Apple can barely claim a performance advantage anymore. The argument goes from "the Mac is still faster for the things you really care about" to "performance really doesn't matter."

I mean, it's a little disheartening to see Apple take up to year to implement things like DDR memory. I mean, you even have no-name PCs coming with PC2700 memory on the motherboard and Apple STILL can't do any better than PC133 memory (except in XServe).

There is simply no excuse for being behind the curve so much on hardware. Yeah, Apple is unfortunately at the mercy of Motorola's incompetence with the G4, but seriously, PC133 memory is their top of the line desktop, when even cost cutters like Dell have been using 400 Mhz buses on their desktop for months?

A quad-G4 destkop, at least, would send a message that Apple isn't ceding the hardware wars. Even a dual 1.5 GHz G4 desktop later this month will get nothing better than a "big deal" if it comes with yesterday's technology like DDR 266 memory (and it will be a disaster if it comes with mere 133 MHz memory).

Give users a quad-G4 with a modern subsystem. At least such a machine would clearly blow away any dual-Athalon or P4 machine on a variety of tasks. Anything less will reek of "let's soak the pro user as much as possible before the G5 comes out."
 
And another thing - has anyone else noticed that almost none of the threads on the New and Rumors Discussion page have anything to do with cool new hardware?

It's as if the Mac community has collectively decided hardware has become totally uninteresting or unimportant anymore. Or perhaps it's like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. The fact is, there really isn't much positive stuff to talk about with regards to Mac hardware (with the exception of iPod and maybe XServe)....but that's what happens when you go 2 years at a time to update your hardware platform.

Let me just remind everyone, the $2,999 Fastest config for the G4 tower one can get today still has only 1 GHz G4s 7 FREAKIN' MONTHS after it was introduced, still running on ancient PC133 memory! This is Apple's top-of-the-line PRO system??!! Hermit crabs update their hardware faster than Apple does at this point.

No wonder desktop sales are imploding like there's no tomorrow. Apple can't do anything about Motorola, but it can sure as heck at least keep up with the PC guys in subsystems and such. But sadly, not only are they behind, but they are VERY far behind. It will be a truly sad and pathetic situation is all we can cheer about is the desktops finally using DDR memory.
 
Boy, the signal to noise level on this board just ain't what it used to be.

I say that the quad G4 is unlikely, as the next update will probably be desktop prosumer towers. However I do think that Quad G4's are a natural fit for the XServe if they can speed up the IO subsystem, which they seem to be working on.

I must say though, that my dual G4 450 feels considerably more responsive under moderate to heavy load conditions than a new 800MHz G4 machine. I'm not saying that it plays Quake as fast, but if gaming were my priority I'd have different hardware.

I would like and am hopeful for Apple going back to the dual processor midrange offering, like this was back in the day when I got the Dual 450. I'd rather have dual 800's than a 1.4GHz machine. Either way though, DDR 266 is probably what we'll see.

Also, I pay for my electricity, and my machine stays on ALL the time. screw GHz if they cost me tons of cash on electricity, and make my apartment any hotter than it already is.

So quad processors is unlikely now, but I think we'll see them if Apple puts out another dedicated server config.
 
Hi theed,

Sorry if I sounded kinda frustrated there. I'm breathing slow and deep breaths now. :p

You do make some valid points with regards to latency and everything. Macosrumors also mentioned that Jaguar is much better and more efficient on MP machines. And the OS is a big factor and by all counts, 10.2 looks like it's finally the OS everyone has been waiting for.

Still, why is it that Apple can't seem to update a hardware line more than once a year? I suppose that it's a good thing in that the hardware you buy doesn't become "obsolete" 3 months down the line, but because Apple seems afraid to market more than 2 product lines at once, we get these long stretches between updates or speed bumps. The desktops are updated in January, then 3 months later, you update the iBook, then 3 months later, the iMac, then 3 months later, the PowerBook G4, then a year after that, it's back to the pro desktops again. And by the time the desktops get updated, they get introduced using yesterday's technology because they should've come out 6 months before. Oh well, that's the way it seems to me.

I do realize that if Apple introduces new desktops in the next week or two, it'll have been 7 months since the last update. Not quite a year, but the problem is, whatever comes out should have come out 7 months ago (unless Apple truly surprises us). Constantly being behind the curve is no way to double your market share.

On the positive note, Apple is doing a better job with the iMac line. I was pleasantly surprised at the new 17" iMac with the GeForce 4MX upgrade - definitely came at the right time to reinject lost momentum into the iMac line. The updates to the iPod were also needed and fairly aggressive and came at the right time. But going 2 quarters with pro desktop sales caving in before reacting seems a little unresponsive to me - surely Apple can do better. It would be nice for Apple to fire on all cylinders instead of alternating between the first three and the last three as they typically do.
 
Originally posted by pezagent


Yes, but the dual G4s get their buts kicked by the dual AthlonXP 2100... so if you're laying out the extra moola for a quad system that still underperforms AMD or Intel, what's the point?
Click to expand...


Ok, what I have to say is what I find in Apple computers is FREEDOM. I just simply cannot stand how confined and controlled I feel while I use a wintel setup, like Gates is breathing down my neck, telling me what apps to buy and use, and how I should be using my computer. I especialy hate it when the make the wrong assumption of me actualy wanting to purchase more Windows software.. sheesh

If I ever did get a PC, I would most certainly be instaling Linux on it.

Quite simply, Apple has a much better flavor to it, one of sincerity, quality, and that of freedom. Unix is capable of being highly customizable, and I know apple has been working towards getting a quad processor machine to the market for some time. I feel that apple's smartest move they could make would be moving in to use the intel chip archatecture, as that would enable their software to be as widespread as (unfortunatly) windows is now.

...Sometimes I feel like people only use windows because they don't know anything else, and to me thats sad. Many havent used a mac, and because they don't understand them, they jeer and push it down. Unfortunatly, this is a characteristic of human nature which needs to be overcome in more than just the computer world....
 
vitaboy, I hope you don't think I was coming down on you. My comment about trolling included you a bit, but it certainly wasn't meant personally by any means. Just want to make that clear. Personal attacks aren't my style ... at least as far as I can help. :)

Anyway, I think the price point on the towers is an issue, and one that needs more than a minor resolution. With an iMac G4 performing on par with a tower at the same price, and the iMac having a decent flat panel display included ... the price on the tower is ludicrous. I love dual processors, but I simply can not reasonably afford a $3000 box just to have the second processor.

And the slow release cycle is the product of the simplified marketing line-up (which I agree with for the most part); and the slow updating of the PPC line which is what has the Intel rumors going again. Apple could be using faster RAM, but I think it's a moot point until some faster IO PPC chips roll out. I could be mistaken.

And kudos on Nitro's point. Someone once said that the difference between a Mac and a Windows machine was that the mac was a computer you could use, and the Windows box was a computer that let you use it. ... Frell, I think it may have been Strobe that put it that way. It was a subtle statement that underscores the emotion that many of us feel, empowered at our Macintoshes.

How about this though? Single processor config with a slot waiting for another processor? Upgrade from Apple as you want? From 3rd parties? Ship with 1,2,or 4 processors as a checkbox option on a config? Oooooooh boy would I like some of that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top