Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dual G4 Mac Cube

Posted by michael on from the doubles-as-space-heater dept.

ijx writes: "Those of you with a hardware-hacking bent should enjoy this - a Mac Cube modded to accomodate dual processors, courtesy of AccelerateYourMac. It seems that it uses the same dual-proc module as a Sawtooth G4 Tower. My question: will it melt?"

8 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Melting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If you put enough fans in the Dual Athlons
    they don't melt , should work for this too
    and double as a desktop hair dryer ....

  2. Interesting by flonker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Modifying a machine to be dual processor without swapping out the motherboard? Anyone have any more info on this? The article was kinda skimpy on the details, it assumed we knew already.

    1. Re:Interesting by Osty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Modifying a machine to be dual processor without swapping out the motherboard? Anyone have any more info on this? The article was kinda skimpy on the details, it assumed we knew already.

      This is a by-product of the PPC architecture used by Apple. You're thinking in a PC mindframe, where the CPU sockets are built directly onto the motherboard, and to do a dual setup you need a mobo that supports two CPUs. A Macintosh is different. The CPU is on a separate card. The dual CPU card is the same as a single CPU card, but with two CPUs on it. It connects to the motherboard in exactly the same way. Now, I've never taken a mac apart or done a CPU upgrade, so I don't have much authority here, but that is the gist of how it's done. PC architecture vs. Mac architecture.

    2. Re:Interesting by SlamMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactally right. We got a dual 500 processor card donated to us because the machine was damaged in flood (there was liquified ceiling tile corroding the rest of the motherboard, but the card was high enough to stay out of it). All we had to do was pop it in the slot that had out single processor 400, and off it went, rendering out movie files at extra blazing speed.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
  3. Re:Cool! by class_A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a shame Apple don't offer some ultra-dense server solutions built on Mac OS X Server as they obviously have the capability to produce some pretty robust systems.

  4. Re:Will it melt? by Corrado · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recently turned off my Dual Celeron 333 because of a bad fan and I couldn't beleive the amount of noise I was dealing with every day! All those fans make quite a racket. Since then I have been on a quest to get a silent (or as close as possible) system.

    I thought about getting a used SPARC Station (or something similar), but I think this Dual Cube thing would be great! Man, I wish Apple would have sold this. I think I might have given up all my other computer equipment (except my near-silent FREESCO box :) to have it. *sigh*

    --
    KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
  5. Risc vs Cisc is not the heat issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It is related to Cisc vs Risc but that is not the main reasoning. Risc and Cisc processor may run hot but Intel and AMD are not making Cisc processors but rather RISC-like procesors with MicroOps that allow them to convert x86 instructions into internal instructions, this extra baggage along with the units and added hardware so the performance is good brings up the heat. So it is like super fast to counter it's instruction set so Risc Processor certainly can be built cooler. Cisc does not exist anymore, complex ISAs exist but the processors themselves are not, straight up CISC simply cannot scale.

  6. Re:oops by cduffy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Underperformers need not be relics. Whereas many of the embedded chips I work with aren't even in the same playing field as the G4s being discussed here (though G4s *are* among the chips we support), quite a few of the systems we support *are* built for speed -- just with that not foremost in mind.

    Compare Intel's "mobile" chips used in laptops with those for the desktop market; the performance difference isn't all that great, while the difference in power consumption is large. These are still quite a bit more power-hungry than most embedded chips, but they illustrate that not all new development is done with performance as the primary goal. There's a lot more than underclocking which can be done to cool down a chip (don't look here for details, though -- I'm software, not EE).