View Full Version : New G5, may have 4 CPU?

05-31-2004, 04:30 AM
People on a Swedish Mac forum have find information about a new Mac in the OSX 10.3.4 update.
There’s reference to “PowerMac8,1”, and that’s no small update of some existing model as you can see in this list below of Mac computers..

Another interesting thing is that you can find thing that points to that the new machine will or can use 4 CPU.
“AppleMacRISC4PE.kext” is a 4PE (Processor Enabler).
AppleMacRisc2PE.kext is corresponding enebler for 2CPU machines.
If you check the file you can find more things that points to 4 CPU..

Search for 8,1 in this file the reference to the new model:

What do you guys think?

Mac machine identification history:

Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White)

Power Macintosh G4 (PCI-Graphics)

iMac (Slot-Loading CD-ROM)

iMac (Summer 2000)

Power Macintosh G4 (AGP-Graphics)

Power Macintosh G4 (AGP-Graphics)

Power Macintosh G4 (Gigabit Ethernet)

Power Macintosh G4 (Digital Audio)

Power Macintosh G4 (Quick Silver)
Power Macintosh G4 (Quick Silver 2002)

Power Macintosh G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors)
Power Macintosh G4 (FW 800)
Power Macintosh G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors 2003)

iMac (Early 2001)
iMac (Summer 2001)

iMac (Flat-Panel)

eMac (ATI Graphics)
eMac (1 GHz G4)

iMac (17-inch Flat-Panel)
iMac (17-inch 1 GHz)

Power Macintosh G4 Cube
Power Macintosh G4 Cube (Early 2001)

iMac (USB 2.0)

iMac (20-inch Flat-Panel)

eMac (USB 2.0)

Power Macintosh G5s

05-31-2004, 05:17 AM
I'd love to have one of these new 4 processor G5 PowerMacs.

Unfortunately, much of Lightwave works on a maximum of 1 processor at a time.

05-31-2004, 05:41 AM
but rendering is multi threaded right?

or at least a lot of things in rendering are..


Only things I know of are hypervoxels and stuff that isn't multithreaded.

and most post-effect plugins.

but the basic rendering and Anti Aliasing is.. I thought at least..

05-31-2004, 02:24 PM
4 processors, 12ghz... mmmm... fan noise....

05-31-2004, 07:20 PM
Can't you fit 4 CPUs into the current box?

05-31-2004, 07:28 PM
Here's my Dream Machine, only 15k, or $335 a month. Cheep at half the price :)

05-31-2004, 08:27 PM
wow! you save 300 bucks?! what're ya waitin' for!?!

05-31-2004, 08:36 PM
Yeah the local chinese take-away, gives better discounts than these guys.

Seriously though, I think all Mac products are way over priced. Even if your buying replacement Ink Carts from the Apple store, they charge a much higher premium than your local pc shop.

The Ipod battery was a classic example

06-01-2004, 04:17 AM
15k and not even a professional video card à la Quadro FX4000...

I'd rather build a quad-Opteron renderslave for 15 grands...
or get one of those IBM monitor with 3840x2400 resolution :)
Although that's still a silly waste of money IMHO.

06-01-2004, 05:51 AM
Yeah, but he'll save another whopping $500 from the mail in rebate due to the TFT :)
Well, the package does include 2 23" TFTs... Still very pricey though...
Hehe, I wonder how much it would be in the German Apple Store, US$20.000? ;)

06-01-2004, 08:48 AM
Yeah I agree I would tie that much cash up in one machine, even if I had the bucks to burn.

06-01-2004, 09:31 AM
I was figuring on spending around $5k. I think every new Mac I've bought since the 9600 was between $3k-$3.5k. This time, though, I'd have to spend extra on Ram and another $250 to update my Igniter card (damn new PCI slots). I think I'd buy 2 1gb chips (not from Apple) with the dream of one day reaching 8gb of Ram.

Flatscreens are a HUGE waste of $$$$. Yeah, it's cool looking and takes up less space, but CRTs are sharper and under half the price. My old 19"s are doing just fine after 5 years.

Apple isn't giving a scsi option with the G5. That blows. There is a scsi card out there for the new slot (at least my friend says so). There should be more slots, too.

4 processors? Quad 3ghz G5? Yeah, that sounds cool if the starting price is consistent with what Apple usually charges for their top dog, or should I say top cat considering their OS naming preferences?

06-01-2004, 10:50 AM
I gotta disagree about flatscreens.
Many of them are just terrible with color, but I have found that Apple LCDs consistently have Better color than CRTs. This is true until you get into the fancy print CRTs and then your spending about the same money for your picture... and the LCD is smaller, and won't burn your eyes out of your skull.

I've put a nice sony trinitron tube up against a 2001 17" Apple Lcd, on the same geForce 4 ti, and its no contest. The CRT filckers, its Blue, two horizontal lines in the screen, and it has visible warping around the edges. This stuff wasn't visible to me before because, I hadn't put a crt Next to an LCD. Once you do that... you see things that your eyes have been coping with for years, and its terrible.

as an addendum, I have also put a Sony 15" next to an apple 17"... Sony makes a terrible LCD.

06-01-2004, 11:01 AM
I can see the damn pixels on an LCD.

I'm talking sharpness. CRTs are better. Same for TVs. I'd buy a HD CRT before a Plasma. Sharper and half the cost.

I'll agree Apple probably has the best of the LCDs.

My old CRT warp at the edges, but new, flat CRTs are very nice.

I work in video, not print. If print, then I'd have to spend a bundle on a color correct monitor. I guess that makes up for the fact that I wouldn't need the fastest computer nor a renderfarm if all I was doing was print.

06-01-2004, 11:12 AM
Erm...right, that you can see the pixels proves that LCDs are less sharp than CRTs... :confused:
Wish i had your eyes...they'd save me a lot of money if they see a TV sharper than a TFT.

06-01-2004, 11:21 AM
Pixels. Pixel clusters. Whatever. I see dots, damn it, on LCDs. The edges of icons and such are not crisp.

10 years ago I had 20/10 or whatever it's called that's better then 20/20 (I forget the order of the #s). I don't know if that's still true, but I can't believe I'm the only one who sees the dots.

I've seen numerous reviews that claim HD CRTs are sharper then HD Plasma TVs. Why would it be different for computer monitors?

I will give that they would probably be easier on the eyes....and give off no heat compared to my old Syncmasters.

06-01-2004, 11:49 AM
uhhhh... plazma is a terrible thing. but its not Liquid crystal... ala LCD. Plazma TVs are dead technology, LCDs are something different altogether.

sure I can relate to the "seeing" of pixels. and at first I disliked it. but after using an lcd for a short time I realized that the "digital-ness" of the lcd is not a drawback.

think about this... each pixel in the LCD is an intended pixel, the computer means to show you that exact color. Thats why there is an ADC, no color correction controls, or choices for the screen size. It is an exact representation of what Your computer Wants to show you. IE: less noise in the channel. Ok sure, we think we need that blurry vagueness, that CRTs provide... but I've found that everyone I know who has used an Apple branded LCD for just a few days, will not go back to CRTs if they can help it. There are Some tradeoffs, but most people feel like the price is worth it.

06-01-2004, 12:43 PM
I do print illustration and retouching day in, day out. 14hrs a day isn't unusual. I'd would throw a major tantrum if I had to go back to CRT. Apple flatscreens have been a beautiful thing. It's probably saved my eyeballs a few more years of working life.

viva la flatscreen! Now back to the main topic...

I'll be glued to Apple's WWDC in hopes of hearing hardware advancements.

06-01-2004, 01:56 PM
I find CRT's sharper, but have noticed that staring at a CRT all day makes my eyes more tired than staring at an LCD. Does for me anyway, we have both at work, and my eyes are always happier after a day of editing on an LCD.

Anyway, on the thread topic. There has been much discussion of this rumor on other Mac forums. Something of interest: Notice that all the iMac models are given even numbers while the PowerMacs have odds? So, most people are speculating that the 8,1 refers to a new iMac.

EDIT: I'm not saying that a 4-proc enabler isn't there, but I don't think the 8,1 specifically refers to it, if it exists.

06-01-2004, 02:04 PM
That makes sense, they are working on a G5 iMac, and the desktop G5 is not due for a complete re-work - I also remember an Apple rep completely refute the idea of a 4 proc machine, 'no way in hell' was the sentiment. I think we'll get dual core before that ever happens

06-01-2004, 02:35 PM
I just don't feel like having to wait until Macworld in August to see a new G5. I have my $$$ squirreled away now for a new box. I'm ready. Bring it on, Apple.
I have no choice but to move to G5 next. I can't upgrade my G4s anymore.

I still think I'd save money buying Visene and sticking with CRTs instead of moving to LCDs.:D

06-01-2004, 04:41 PM
I got one of the refurbished ones, I think it's a good deal, saved $600, I'm sure someone's got a horror story but there's horror stories with brand-new ones too - I figure, if it just needed a new motherboard, and it comes with a year warranty and all, why not?

06-01-2004, 05:27 PM
I think that's kinda interesting that people know the operating system enough that they can install an update, dig through the system, and find all of these news files. There's no way I'd be able to do that (or have the patience) That's cool though how it's actually there. Makes the new G5 rumors seem all the more true.

06-02-2004, 02:53 AM
I love LCD!

No matter how great colorcorrecting ability's are on CRT's.

When you do printing, and you have to setup a calibrated monitor with a calibrated printer. CRT is your choice. Still a bit better in coloraccuracy.

but hey.. for video or animation???? if you want it to be correct then you have to buy a broadcast monitor to see how you videoimage is. And then you can easily use an LCD for main use.

If I work on a CRT all day, my eyes almost pop out of my head. LCD is just like reading a newspaper.

just my 2 cents..


06-02-2004, 02:57 AM
This quad processor enabler, if real, doesn't imply that there will be a quad processor model. Another realistic possibility is a dual machine, but with processors capable of simultaneous multithreading (Intel marketing calls this Hyperthreading).

Such capability is already present in IBM's Power5 processor. A derived "Power5Lite" (like the PPC970 was derived from Power4) would inherit this functionality.

This would mean that two physical processors look to the software like four logical processors, each with roughly 70% the speed. (Yes, this sums up to over 200%, but increased efficiency is the whole point of simultaneous multithreading.)

06-02-2004, 04:18 AM
I got more info. It seems that the "4" in the filename is not the number of processors, but rather a label for chip generation (these internal numbers would be different from the marketed G3, G4, G5 scheme). This file has been present on all G5 machines. So no hidden hint to quad machines.