Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Dev. Tools Hint @ Dual-core G5 & Quad Mac
Eug writes "Apple just released a new version of its CHUD tools, which provides clues about dual-core G5s and quad core Macs (dual dual-core).
The clues include a reference to the 970MP, which is dual-core G5 with increased L2 cache. Also, there is now support for 4 CPUs, whereas previous versions of these Mac OS X tools only supported 2.
This likely means we'll see dual-core Macs by WWDC, and possibly quad Macs based off these dual-core chips by then too."
So, while it is interesting to speculate on what Apple may be doing and where they may be going with various products, I have never really understood the rabid nature of the fan sites and rumor sites. What is the point with rumors? Can anybody explain that to me?
I am going to be practical here: It has always amazed me that people say "I am going to wait to buy XXXX until they come out with the new one". Buy what you need for the job you need it for and realize that whenever you buy something computer related, it is likely already obsolete and will be replaced with the next shiny thing in a couple of months. There are very few times where waiting will recoup your investment. Get what you need for the job and start being productive now. If something comes out that will make you more productive, then sell off the previous system and get the new one if 1) it will pay off the investment or I suppose, 2) if you simply like shiny things.
Don't get me wrong. Apple builds some sexy hardware and software, but I prefer to use their stuff for my work and research because it simply allows more productivity and is more pleasurable to work with, but somebody, please explain to me why the rumor sites are so popular? I understand why business analysts might be interested, and competitors, buy why the obsession of fans with these rumors?
Oh, and is not it time for the Slashdot Apple desktop icon to be updated to reflect the current desktop line? i.e. G5.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Dual-Core Dual-CPU G5 will be the ultimate design powerhouse....esp if Apple/IBM can up the cores to like 2.8 or even 3GHz each, then you can have a theoretical 12GHz workstation. Even accounting for SMP overhead, a dual-core dual-cpu G5 can chunk a massively parallel job (e.g. HD movie rending) at the equivalent of 10GHz.
I'm impressed.
To get to the point where fans will scan random binaries for strings that give clues as to the features of upcoming products, write their speculations in blogs, and where these blogs then make the front page of the world's most popular news site for geeks...
I'm impressed.
Now if only I knew what CHUD, 970MP, or WWDC meant...
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
...will they call it a Quadra? ;)
I can't help thinking that this is bad timing on Think-Secret's part. To raise your profile by doing (again!)
The reason is that Nick Ciarelli is making beaucoup cash from Think Secret. It has been a cash cow for him.
On the other hand, there's the case that if he's not doing anything wrong, why not continue doing exactly that.
The blog world is having a field day with this case but the reality is that Apple is not trying to limit what blogs report, and they do not consider Think Secret to be a blog site. It is a rumor site that has broken the law by soliciting confidential information and compensating those who choose to divulge confidential proprietary information. Good write up on the reality here.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
Its like IBM in the 60s (boy I feel o-l-d) and the seventies, when all of the trade rags were committing acts of stochastic tittilation trying to perceive the direction that an elephant was going in from a point of view slightly below and in front if its tail.
/null/zero bit-bucket.
Apple is a live player and everybody who can't DO like to play at pre-guessing on ones who can as to what they're actually going to DO.
If they're right, they can claim guru-hood and if they're wrong, they bury the evidence in the
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Rumors for Nerds!
Stuff that may or may not be true!
I am convinced thay have missed the boat until now. They need to make a PC crusher at the top of their line, something that is so much faster than any PC for creative work that no one would dare say any PC is faster.
They got a lot of attention and doubting when they introed "The World's Fastest Personal Computer" when they came out with the G5. What they need to do is actually make that come true beyond anyone's doubt, and then keep up with it. To hell with what it costs - if they sold those IIfx's for 10K back in 1993 they can do the same thing today but even better for far less money.
This time, make that boast true, and shove it straight down the naysayers throats.
Theory is that the dual core chips will run cooler than two single core chips and there's less real estate on the motherboard required (one socket and less glue circuitry).
John.
Would two dual-core CPUs be considered 4 discrete processors by the OS? It seems to me that 4-processor support in OSX probably means two physical dual-core CPUs
One CPU is always one CPU. A dual core die is two CPUs both in software in hardware. In this context, a CPU is a processor is a core. So they are talking about discovering the ability of the software to handle four processors. That could mean a single quade-core (unlikely), two dual-core CPUs, or four CPUs on four dies (also unlikely).
When you mix hyperthreading in, that gets tricky because then it is a single CPU represented as two CPUs to the OS. The pipeline of a G5 is not designed in a way that would benefit much from hyperthreading, so that will probably be left to Pentium IV processors for now.
CHUD tools are most useful for testing products, but they happen to have some utility for those of us who want to tweak our computers at home. The latest release indicates that the developers have modularized the product and made it more adaptable when chips change.
What's likely happened is that Apple will get hot under the collar about the way these tools can inadvertantly indicate possible future plans. They used to release WWDC sessions on Quicktime CD's for free (back in 98 or 99). They used to not make developers sign their life away in non-disclosure agreements. They used to allow more access to developer docs, tools, and seeds to the dedicated hobbyist. Now these are all restricted because of leaks that have come from eager fans searching resource forks, out of context remarks, and misunderstood uses as "evidence of Apple's future plans".
If no quad processors are actually in the production pipeline, this rumor will be forgotten. If there is something that has been revealed by the Chud tools, it's more likely that Chud tools will be even more restricted and difficult to get hold of. Slowing down development as developers fear for their jobs for accidentally including a reference to a product they may know nothing about (e.g. Asteroid, a cpu number, a code name, etc.)
It's not like these strings tell you any useful information. Since Apple has a lengthy design, testing and production pipeline all it really says is we might have some new tech in a couple of years if it seems like a good marketing move. There's no pricing, case design, release dates, or anything marketing related in these leaks. In fact, since Apple is strongly dependent on a suprising and innovative marketing aura these leaks and speculations probably worsen that marketability.
One other example: the rumors sites have seen some "evidence" in seed releases that Apple will be making a push to release OS X on x86 chips. That may be the case, but more than likely they're confusing efforts to make a Window's user's transition to a Mac easier as "evidence" that Apple is moving to x86. All that happens is that OS X users will be disappointed that future releases don't run on the x86 line as their speculative "evidence" promised.
Get over the obsession with the rumors; you're only setting youreself up for disappointment.
Even though Apple Computer's stock is pretty high in regards to the P/E ratio (ever since the iPod got the investors' interest), I still think it might be a good buy for the future.
I agree. You won't make any money off of dividends, but my own belief (and Wall Street's consensus, for what that is worth) is that AAPL is a good buy. I'm hoping that when Apple holds their next earnings call that we will find out that the Mac mini has sold absolute gangbusters, and that it will allow the market's focus upon the success of the iPod to be somewhat psychologically replaced by the success of the mini.
Unfortunately, I didn't get in on either stock on the ground floor, and even though they went up pretty high now I think they both might still be great buys for the future.
Apple, yes. Google, not so sure. Apple is consistently coming out with products that make money, and their recent stock split have brought their stock back to more reasonable levels. Google is still trading at around $180/share, and that to my mind is far too high a price to pay given their current revenues. They're profitable, I just don't know about $180/share profitable.
Difficult to see, the future is. *shrug* For whatever reason my inner Warren Buffet says "buy AAPL, wait on GOOG".
There actually was a four-processor Mac once- The DayStar Genesis clone. It had 2-4 604e processors, and required a special asymmetric multiprocessing library and software written for it (this was back in the days of System 7.5).
You have to do a click-through NDA just to get the -current- version ( 4.0.1 ) of the CHUD tools, I don't want to think about where this guy got his clearly pre-release copy of CHUD 4.1.0.
Are there sites that show off pre-release Microsoft software covered by NDAs? Where can you get the unannounced plans for Intel's next big thing? Why is it that people don't expect Apple to sue their pants off when they report this stuff ??
Don't get me wrong, I'm big on freedom of speech, press, and just about anything else, but... if it was my company whose not-publicly-announced-plans were being outed all over the internet, I'd be pissed, and probably suing, if just to find the source of the leak and fire someone.
Clearly, Apple's not going to make too big a deal out of this, since it's info in an app that anyone can download ( after creating a free account and clicking past an NDA ) , but still... I certainly wouldn't put this kind of stuff up on *my* website without a sure way to keep the lawyers at bay. On the other hand, since the noted version isn't actually available _yet_, they might sue... maybe it wasn't going to go out until after Apple announced quad-processor plans. Given Apple's recent lawsuits ( and court victories ) in this area, I'd think people would be a *little* more careful what they blog, but I guess not. Eug looks pretty annon, I don't know what you have to do to get an EverythingApple blog going, maybe he feels that Apple just can't get to him. For his sake, I hope he's right.
In any event, it'll be interesting to see how long AnythingApple can keep this page up, and I am definitely keeping my eye out for a new CHUD update...
quad G5s?? Damn, I almost forgot to drool about that !! 64-bit number-crunching goodness!!
Just to rephrase the last part of your statement: The latest Pentium IV processors have such extremely long pipelines that "bubbles" in the flow cause huge performance penalties. Hyperthreading is an attempt to kill this penalty by allowing the processor to do unrelated work during this bubble, rather than effectively sitting idle during that time.
The G5 does have the longest pipeline of any PowerPC processor, but it is still short enough that "bubbles" are rarer and not the enormous penalty that they are on the Pentium. Therefore Hyperthreading is neither needed, nor would it be beneficial.
Saying that the G5 is not designed to benefit from pipelining is misleading.
Add to this that mutli-core chips usually have better memory interconnects with each other, improving speed to a small degree...not to mention that either there are more memory coherence interconnects for all chips involved (assuming a point-to-point design similar to AMD aka Hypertransport) or a shared memory bus like Intel (and reduced memory throughput per chip)
In short 2xDual is better than 4xSingle.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
This is not a rumor about another dual-core chip. There is no mention of a chip at all. Apple uses IBM chips,and, as you mention, "IBM has been doing it for a while."
This is about Apple's diagnostic and performance tools supporting more than 2 CPU cores. The implication is, whatever prototypes Apple's working on needs these tools *right now.*
Further, Apple is not much of a server vendor. XServe is great, sure, but it's not how Apple makes its money. You can bet that, if Apple's going 4-way, it's going to have 4-way desktops or workstations.
Windows XP, on the other hand, does not yet support more than two logical CPUs. So any dual-core chip used on an XP box would be by itself...a two-way box. 4-way or larger Windows boxes would have to run Server 2003. Windows Server is not usually blessed for use on personal machines. (Though plenty of people do it.)
So what's the point? The point is, four cores on your desk, not in your closet.
Hyper-Threading is a marketing term for a perfectly legitimate microarchitectural feature more generally known as simultaneous multithreading (SMT).
SMT has nothing to do with "dual input pipes" and absolutely requires more than "a single execution unit." The essential features include storage for more than one processor state (data and status registers, program counter, etc.), the ability to mix instructions from multiple threads within the CPU, and multiple execution units.
The Pentium 4 processor with Hyper-Threading has all of those things, including SEVEN execution units that can operate in parallel (but very rarely all at the same time). HT is a simple version of SMT, but it was also fairly inexpensive to add, giving a 20%-30% performance boost for just a few percent more die area.
Yes, a true dual-core processor without SMT can achieve much better throughput on some code than a single-core SMT processor. But that dual-core processor will be almost twice the size of a single-core SMT processor. Dollar for dollar, SMT is a much better way to get more performance than a multi-core design.
The best designs will use both-- SMT within the core because it's such a big win in cost and power efficiency, and multiple cores because that's the most practical way to take advantage of the high transistor counts available in current semiconductor manufacturing processes.
. png