PDA

View Full Version : New Power Macs



KPS
10-19-2005, 10:36 AM
"Apple has also updated its Power Mac G5 system, which Moody calls the "system of choice for creative professionals that need power."

The new systems feature dual-core PowerPC processors and a new system architecture that can support up to 16GB of 533MHz DDR2 RAM. They can also hold up to 1 terabyte (TB) of internal Serial ATA (SATA) storage, and are the first Power Macs to feature PCI Express (PCIe) expansion slots. DDR2 RAM and PCIe are both featured on Apple's recently refreshed iMac G5 system.

Apple has worked with graphics maker Nvidia Corp. to feature four new graphics options for the refreshed Power Mac G5 line, including the Quadro FX 4500 -- Nvidia's fastest workstation card. This fills a gap in the Power Mac line that has long been criticized by 3D graphics professionals and others who have wanted faster graphics systems than the consumer-oriented cards and chips Apple has offered in the past. The Quadro card can support dual 30-inch displays, according to Moody.

The new Power Macs G5 "Quad" system touts eight floating point units, four velocity engines, four 1MB Level 2 caches and is capable of processing 76.6 gigaflops. "There is some serious horsepower under the hood," said Moody.

The Power Mac G5 starts in a single-processor, dual-core configuration clocked at 2.0GHz for $1,999. The 2.3GHz dual-core system costs $2,499, and the "Quad" dual-processor, dual-core system starts at $3,299."

monovich
10-19-2005, 11:12 AM
I would really love to see if that Quadro FX4500 can really speed things up as much as we would all hope (i.e. paritfy with the PC version).

-s

Darth Mole
10-19-2005, 11:30 AM
Yeah - it adds over 1,000 ($1,600) to the price of the Quad, and I wonder whether it's worth it at the moment. I guess I could always add one later...

archiea
10-19-2005, 12:01 PM
well, we stil need the OS to catch up, darn it... full openGL2.0 as well as a fully 64bit OS. I Hate this.. with the intel switch over apple still has me guessing.. but **** this is nice hardware...

What a cute little graph....
http://images.apple.com/powermac/images/indexcreativechart20051018.jpg

HA!! lightwave gets mentioned, but no Maya... Thats nice for ea change! ;D

dukestreet
10-19-2005, 12:31 PM
full openGL2.0 as well as a fully 64bit OS. I Hate this.. with the intel switch over apple still has me guessing..


It is a bit of a conundrum - I'm not sure yet whether I'm going to get one or wait - hopefully some more specs will be showing up soon - and its a 3-4 week wait for the dual dual cores to arrive.

D

kfinla
10-19-2005, 01:23 PM
:thumbsup: AWESOME :thumbsup:

been wanting to replace my aging G4 for awhile.

Darth Mole
10-19-2005, 01:45 PM
Man, from a dual 1.4 G4 you're sure going to see a speed up - especially if you go for the 10GHz machine!!

[Edit] Jeez, how fast will FPrime render!?!?

dukestreet
10-19-2005, 01:50 PM
Man, from a dual 1.4 G4 you're sure going to see a speed up - especially if you go for the 10GHz machine!!

[Edit] Jeez, how fast will FPrime render!?!?

So its dual core dual 2.5 GHz - but I don't see how that equates to 10 GHz

But don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, that power would be amazing - I'm running a dual 1.25 GHz G4 right now and the new machine would give me an order of magnitude speed increase :D

D

3dworks
10-19-2005, 02:59 PM
So its dual core dual 2.5 GHz - but I don't see how that equates to 10 GHz

But don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, that power would be amazing - I'm running a dual 1.25 GHz G4 right now and the new machine would give me an order of magnitude speed increase :D

D

actually apple states that the boost will be around 60% in render speed when compared to the last double 2.7 ghz processor models. so, if you express it in ghz, by simple math it's like using a 9.1 ghz single processor mac :) obviously, this figure is pure theory, probably the real boost factor is much less because LW is not fully optimized for double/quad processing yet.

jat
10-19-2005, 05:51 PM
What do you guys think of the 6600 card in the mid level G5? And if the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT is an option buy then why can't we see it in the BTO options?

archiea
10-19-2005, 06:24 PM
see, you read this page, at the bottom left, and you'd swear that Apple OS was a full 64 bit system....

http://www.apple.com/powermac/dualcore.html

archiea
10-19-2005, 06:26 PM
What do you guys think of the 6600 card in the mid level G5? And if the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT is an option buy then why can't we see it in the BTO options?
Well, what use is it if the OS isn't full openGL2.0..... Wha wha wha...

Weepul
10-19-2005, 07:40 PM
But don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, that power would be amazing - I'm running a dual 1.25 GHz G4 right now and the new machine would give me an order of magnitude speed increase :D

Me too, but extrapolating from Apple's benchmarks as compared to the dual 2.7 GHz G5, and my own tests between my dual 1.25 GHz G4 and a dual 2.5 GHz G5, it should be more like 3.5x the speed of the dual 1.25.

I still want. :D

When's that GeForce 7800 GT going to be added to the BTO options...

Ade
10-19-2005, 07:42 PM
We can now wait for a lightwave mac dual core support like pc's got... *counts time.

dukestreet
10-19-2005, 08:21 PM
When's that GeForce 7800 GT going to be added to the BTO options...

Most strange on that - can't really figure out why they haven't made it available and show it in the supported cards list.

The dual dual core ships in a month and the new photo app, Aperture ships in around 2 (that's where they had the list of supported cards). I'm thinking by the time Aperture ships we'll see the 7800 GT.

So I'm thinking got 2 months to put aside some cash - it will be a nice Christmas :D

D

Weepul
10-19-2005, 08:46 PM
We can now wait for a lightwave mac dual core support like pc's got... *counts time.

LightWave was one of the apps used to benchmark the new dual-dual system on Apple's site. I imagine it runs fine already.

OGL 2.0 and 64-bit on the other hand... :agree:

Those features don't kill it for me, though.


Most strange on that - can't really figure out why they haven't made it available and show it in the supported cards list.

It's even listed as a BTO option here (http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html) (scroll down some). It's just not in the store yet. Maybe it doesn't exist yet? :stumped: (On the other hand, neither does the dual-dual, at least in terms of shipping.)

toby
10-20-2005, 01:36 AM
Hmmmm...

Radiosity Reflective Things :
G5 dual 2.7 ---- 21.7 sec.

Xeon dual 3.6 ----20 sec.

G5 dual core ----- 15 seconds?!?

Booyow!

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 02:50 AM
The quad PowerMac is really, really,*fast. According to a test render I just saw, the quad 2.5GHz was more than twice as fast a dual 2.5GHz. When it comes to 3D rendering, this machine is fairly comparable to a 10GHz machine. Just set the threads to eight and you'll be rocking. Toby, are those results for a single dual-core, or for the quad?


We can now wait for a lightwave mac dual core support like pc's got... *counts time.
There's no such thing as "dual core support." Either your app is multi-threaded, or it's not. The operating system assigns threads to processors. The application cannot effect how it happens, aside from issuing fewer (or more) threads.



Oh, regarding OpenGL 2.0 and video cards... The 6600 has full support for OpenGL 2.0. Mac OS X doesn't. How does it matter? Lightwave only uses 2.0 for the viewport preview of procedurals and gradients, and it doesn't really look all that useful, if you ask me. Having 2.0 won't help you move around in a five million polygon scene.

kfinla
10-20-2005, 06:03 AM
so are the "new" 2 GHz and 2.3 ghz machines any faster than the older dual proc 2 and 2.3.

My understanding is the new 2, and 2.3 are dual core single proc. Which i assume is slightly faster than 2 phyiscially seperate processors of the same speed. I see ram is 133mhz faster. has PCIe, and hold more ram, but honestly I was looking to go to 4GB in my next purchase and dream of 8. 16 is awesome if we can get all the 64 pieces in place.. Lw64 mac, full64 OSX, etc. ZBrush 64!!

Just wondering if theres been much advancement in those systems other than in the Quad. I mean i was hoping these new models were all quads at varying mhz.

The 2.3ghz dual core seems like the best value by my calc's, but going from 4.6 to 10ghz with the quad for 1000$ aint bad either!

I too was hoping to see what the 7800 cards cost, I spend most of my time in ZB these days which doesnt really care about the graphics card at all, its all ram. With new opengl drivers in LW9 everyones gonna feel like they got a new graphics card.

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 08:11 AM
Well, they might be faster, and they might not. With a single dual-core, the cores share the ~1GHz system bus. On a dual single-core, they have 1GHz each. Of course, the RAM is slower than that, and the PCI-E as well, so it probably doesn't matter as much as the extra cache on the processor. They should be slightly faster, I suppose. Especially with the other improvements (faster RAM and video card).

kfinla
10-20-2005, 08:17 AM
i also assume its cheaper to manufacture a single dual core than a dual proc single core machine. Man this all sounds confusing.

wondr if benchmarks for comparing the 2.3 and 2 dual core will go up, or if there isnt enough difference for marketing to wanna show that.

ingo
10-20-2005, 08:31 AM
Well i also hope for a comparsion of the dual-single 2.3 and the single-dual 2.3 Macs, maybe its better to get one of the old ones since they get a few bucks cheaper now.

xaxis8
10-20-2005, 08:53 AM
I do smell G5 quad in my future. I am looking to replace my aging g4 fleet for a while. I was never "gun-ho" about the previous single-core G5s. I knew someday the dual core processors would come out. I am Glad I waited for this.

I wonder how the G5 quad will compare to the dual core opterons? Like to see the next G5 Xserver "cluster nodes".

Z_Render_8
10-20-2005, 09:18 AM
Hum....with all of these dual core numbers breaking out like hives.
:2guns: single-core

I guess the next processors are the quad cores dual or single processor!!

Wow! 4 processors in a single socket?! Now that would be sick power! Maybe in 5 years or so will we see the demonstration of this baby?

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 09:32 AM
Wow! 4 processors in a single socket?! Now that would be sick power! Maybe in 5 years or so will we see the demonstration of this baby?
IBMs POWER5 processor has four cores. Sun have been talking about an eight-core processor.

Z_Render_8
10-20-2005, 10:27 AM
IBMs POWER5 processor has four cores. Sun have been talking about an eight-core processor.

You know somebody told me about this, but I wasn't sure if this was true. Wow that is sick! :eek:

xaxis8
10-20-2005, 10:43 AM
IBMs POWER5 processor has four cores. Sun have been talking about an eight-core processor.

A Power6 is "well underway" and scheduled for introduction in 2006.

I think Zrender was talking about having that kind of power outside the commercial computing market.

A power5 chip is almost four times as large as a PowerPC 970, which drives the Apple G5.

:thumbsup:

Weepul
10-20-2005, 01:37 PM
Radiosity Reflective Things :
G5 dual 2.7 ---- 21.7 sec.

Xeon dual 3.6 ----20 sec.

G5 dual core ----- 15 seconds?!?
According to a test render I just saw, the quad 2.5GHz was more than twice as fast a dual 2.5GHz.


Where are you guys getting these figures?

toby
10-20-2005, 02:23 PM
I just took Blanos figures for the first two, then apporximated 60% faster for the dual core.

Can't wait to try LW 9 with this beeaaatch!

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 03:12 PM
Where are you guys getting these figures?
Well, Allen Hastings posted it over at Lux's boards. 38 seconds with a dual 2.5GHz G5, 17 seconds with a quad 2.5GHz. Oh, and 49 seconds on a dual 2.8GHz Xeon.

...

:lightwave




As for the 60% faster number, I really don't buy that. It should be faster, unless the scene they tried uses something that threads poorly. Multi-threaded 3D rendering usually scales almost linearly with cores.

Ade
10-20-2005, 05:54 PM
The quad PowerMac is really, really,*fast. According to a test render I just saw, the quad 2.5GHz was more than twice as fast a dual 2.5GHz. When it comes to 3D rendering, this machine is fairly comparable to a 10GHz machine. Just set the threads to eight and you'll be rocking. Toby, are those results for a single dual-core, or for the quad?


There's no such thing as "dual core support." Either your app is multi-threaded, or it's not. The operating system assigns threads to processors. The application cannot effect how it happens, aside from issuing fewer (or more) threads.



Oh, regarding OpenGL 2.0 and video cards... The 6600 has full support for OpenGL 2.0. Mac OS X doesn't. How does it matter? Lightwave only uses 2.0 for the viewport preview of procedurals and gradients, and it doesn't really look all that useful, if you ask me. Having 2.0 won't help you move around in a five million polygon scene.



I seem to remember 8.3 had dual core support for pc people...am i right guys?

Weepul
10-20-2005, 06:21 PM
As for the 60% faster number, I really don't buy that. It should be faster, unless the scene they tried uses something that threads poorly. Multi-threaded 3D rendering usually scales almost linearly with cores.

That's what I thought.

Geometry calculations (rendertime sub-d and deformations) and dynamics calculations aren't multi-threaded in LW, are they?

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 06:33 PM
I seem to remember 8.3 had dual core support for pc people...am i right guys?
Market speak. If you've seen a benchmark showing how 8.3 beats 8.2 on a single dual-core processor machine, do tell me about it. ;)



Geometry calculations (rendertime sub-d and deformations) and dynamics calculations aren't multi-threaded in LW, are they?
Apple said Lightwave rendering. Rendering shouldn't be quite that slowed down by calculating the deformations or whatever.

riki
10-20-2005, 07:36 PM
New G5's sound interesting. I'm moving to Japan at the start of December and just tossing up if I should sell my G5 or go through the hassle of shipping it over. This has got me thinking now. Also looks like they're much cheaper in Japan than in Sydney, the top of the line model is about AUS$700 (US$520) cheaper. Decisions Decisions.

Captain Obvious
10-20-2005, 07:38 PM
What about VAT?

riki
10-20-2005, 07:48 PM
We have 10% GST here which is included in the AUS prices (may account for part of the markup). According to my translation the Japanese prices includes 5% consumer tax. Not sure if that's the same as VAT?

Captain Obvious
10-21-2005, 03:48 AM
It's probably the same.

Grrr. Here in Sweden, it's 25%. :(

Weepul
10-21-2005, 05:49 AM
Apple said Lightwave rendering. Rendering shouldn't be quite that slowed down by calculating the deformations or whatever.

Geometry calculations (particularly if you have render subpatch set different from display) and raytracing optimization, both of which are single-thread only AFAIK, count toward the final reported render time. I think. Pretty sure.

Think Apple took a stopwatch to it or just used the numbers LW gave back?

Nitpicking aside, the real point is that the improvement, just like anything having to do with 3D graphics, is scene-dependent. Kinda sucks how all the benchmarks are only compared to previous versions of the PowerMac, rather than giving the actual results (ie. how many FPS in Halo, not what % improvement? What scene or scenes in LW and what was the render time?)

toby
10-21-2005, 10:39 PM
Deformation and optimization would/should count towards the rendertime, but I don't think any of the benchmark scenes have anything like that (wish they did, also some high-poly stuff, and drop the 1-second 'textures' benchmark).

But be assured that Apple used a complimentary rendertime, with benchmarks it's much more accurate to be pessimistic than optimistic!


the real point is that the improvement, just like anything having to do with 3D graphics, is scene-dependent.
60% faster is a ludicrous increase! No further explaination should be neccessary at all.


Kinda sucks how all the benchmarks are only compared to previous versions of the PowerMac
Maybe they're fed up with all the bs press that results when comparing to the competition. I know I am. :D

Lightwolf
10-22-2005, 04:04 AM
60% faster is a ludicrous increase! No further explaination should be neccessary at all.

For a renderer on a dual core it is actually very mediocre. Most current renderers scale way better than that.
Then again, it seems that NT are working on the renderer for 9.0 and I hope they work on their multi-core/threading scalability as well....

Cheers,
Mike

toby
10-22-2005, 11:32 AM
Thanks for once again for coming and pointing out how mediocre everything but your choice of systems is.

However, I'm not bitter enough or picky enough to question or complain about the biggest render speed increase I've ever seen.

Captain Obvious
10-22-2005, 12:15 PM
Thanks for once again for coming and pointing out how mediocre everything but your choice of systems is.

However, I'm not bitter enough or picky enough to question or complain about the biggest render speed increase I've ever seen.
What are you talking about? 3D rendering is the most threadable task in high-end computing, and anything shy of 85% efficiency when increasing the core count is less than amazing. (Barring any single-threaded tasks related to rendering, of course.) If we look at Blanos benchmarks, the efficiency is in the 80-90% range, not in the 60% range. And that's looking at only Macs, by the way. If anything, Apple have skewed that particular benchmark to be less positive.

toby
10-22-2005, 10:01 PM
Well I'm not watching this like it's a ball game - why worry about a 60% increase? What was the increase from the 2.5 to the 2.7? 5, 10%?

If it had 20 procs inside and gave you real-time radiosity, would you argue that it should only take 15? WhoTF cares?

Weepul
10-23-2005, 12:07 AM
I don't think we're worrying about a 60% increase - we're hoping it'll be more than that (since the potential is there) and trying to guess reasons why Apple's benchmarks might be lower than what we as end users will find to be true on average. :D

Captain Obvious
10-23-2005, 03:28 AM
I don't think we're worrying about a 60% increase - we're hoping it'll be more than that (since the potential is there) and trying to guess reasons why Apple's benchmarks might be lower than what we as end users will find to be true on average. :D
Exactly!

And the difference between the 2.7 and the 2.5 was probably more like 7%. ;)

Lightwolf
10-23-2005, 05:53 AM
Thanks for once again for coming and pointing out how mediocre everything but your choice of systems is.

However, I'm not bitter enough or picky enough to question or complain about the biggest render speed increase I've ever seen.
I wasn't even 'bashing' the Mac here, I was 'bashing' how badly the LW renderer scales (Note: I did write renderer and not PowerPC or Mac).
Others in this thread have pointed to competing, unpublished, renderers that profit more from multiple CPUs/Cores.
You can also have a look at how well C4D scales with multpiple processors for example.
Cheers,
Mike

toby
10-23-2005, 01:10 PM
I wasn't even 'bashing' the Mac here, I was 'bashing' how badly the LW renderer scales (Note: I did write renderer and not PowerPC or Mac).
Others in this thread have pointed to competing, unpublished, renderers that profit more from multiple CPUs/Cores.
You can also have a look at how well C4D scales with multpiple processors for example.
Cheers,
Mike
So you did. My apologies.

Stop Lightwave bashing!! :tsktsk:
:D

Lightwolf
10-23-2005, 01:32 PM
So you did. My apologies.

Stop Lightwave bashing!! :tsktsk:
:D
No probs...
Whut? No more LW bashing? Darn ;) :2guns: :stumped:

Seriously though, if LW9 manages to scale to something like an extra 80% for the second processor/core, I'll be a happy camper indeed. And luckily, this will propagate across platforms as well....

Cheers,
Mike - who now wonders what he meant when he wrote "multpiple processors" ;)