PDA

View Full Version : IMB announces PPC G5 dual cores...



Ade
07-07-2005, 08:55 PM
For all you loyalists, heres a scoop - http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/07/07/dual.core.g5.chips/
Beuty of OSX is now it can run for both chips, I hope we are allowed to choose our chip. I dont want to go 100% intel, id like both.

toby
07-07-2005, 11:20 PM
whoa! I'd certainly rather have a 64-bit dual core than a 32-bit Intel! Bit I guess it won't matter in a few years, they'll all be like that - what's the staus of Intel's 64 bit? It looks like they'll be last.

policarpo
07-07-2005, 11:30 PM
No reason the Intel chips can't be reserved for PowerBooks and iMacs. :)

I hope these machines freaking scream! :jam:

js33
07-07-2005, 11:58 PM
whoa! I'd certainly rather have a 64-bit dual core than a 32-bit Intel! Bit I guess it won't matter in a few years, they'll all be like that - what's the staus of Intel's 64 bit? It looks like they'll be last.

Toby,

Intel has had some dual-core 64 bit chips out for a few months now. Also I believe all the Xeons are already 64 bit but not sure if they are dual core yet.

Cheers,
JS

toby
07-08-2005, 01:10 AM
8/
Jezzus $^&#%# Christ!
I've been looking for some news on the web for 1/2 hour now, everything is about server processors, dated a year ago! What the &*[email protected]?!

Anyway I finally found it, yes they are 64bit, and not just the servers.

harlan
07-08-2005, 07:01 PM
The Intel chips in the upcoming Mac's won't all be 32bit, I'd almost guarantee it. As much of an effort as Apple has gone through promoting the advantages of 64bit processing, they're certainly not going to take a step backward just to switch to the intel architecture - the very notion that they would is completely assanine especially when you consider that Intel is making 64bit chips.

Also, don't forget that the switch takes place over the course of two years, and the actual Intel chips have yet to be announced. Apple also mentioned that they have a future with PowerPC chips as well, at least for the short term, and I'd be willing to bet a nut that we'll see another PowerPC based PowerMac on the market before they go Intel.

It's honestly quite frustrating how "negative" people are being regarding the Intel switch - especially when 99.99999999999999999995% of the negativity is based on pure speculation.

toby
07-08-2005, 07:45 PM
Who's being negative? I hadn't heard a single peep about 64bit Intel workstation processors, and I wouldn't want OSX to sit on yet another 32bit machine.

riki
07-08-2005, 09:17 PM
Just a silly question to display my ignorance in these matters. But when Macs start shipping with Intel chips does this mean we'll be able to use Lightwave Plugins that are currently listed on Flay as Intel only?

If not becuase of OS related issues, will they be any easier to port?

harlan
07-09-2005, 12:34 AM
Who's being negative? I hadn't heard a single peep about 64bit Intel workstation processors, and I wouldn't want OSX to sit on yet another 32bit machine.

I wasn't implying anyone in this thread...well, I wasn't intending on it applying to anyone in this thread. It was just a general comment.

harlan
07-09-2005, 12:36 AM
Just a silly question to display my ignorance in these matters. But when Macs start shipping with Intel chips does this mean we'll be able to use Lightwave Plugins that are currently listed on Flay as Intel only?

If not becuase of OS related issues, will they be any easier to port?

It's doubtful, but would certainly be cool.

Chazz
07-10-2005, 09:38 AM
Nothing definite, but here's a cool article (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439&p=2) I found from Anandtech predicting what Apple might be using in the near furture:

Lightwolf
07-10-2005, 10:39 AM
Just a silly question to display my ignorance in these matters. But when Macs start shipping with Intel chips does this mean we'll be able to use Lightwave Plugins that are currently listed on Flay as Intel only?

No, unless you manage to run the PC version of LW on your Mac using virtualPC or some other kind of emulation software...


If not becuase of OS related issues, will they be any easier to port?
Not really, no. Developers will still need OSX and related development tools to port their plugins, and if they took care from the beginning (i.e. didn't use any OS specific calls) it should be fairly painless anyhow.

What is currently holding of developers to port is the extra cost of an OSX development machine plus the needed development tools.
You can apparently hack around it (using a Mac emulator and some old Apple dev tools running OS9), but when it comes to debugging etc. that just isn't a professional set-up for a quality port.
Another option is of course to send the plugin to Richard Brak and get it ported.

The situation is quite different with stand-alone companion tools or non-standard plugins. A port is much more difficult then.

Basically, it is the fact that you run under a different OS that makes a port hard, not the processor. (again, there is an exception with extremely optimized code on the assembler level, which means that the complete optimized code has to be re-written).

Cheers,
Mike