Quad PowerMacs?

That would be something!!! but i'm not getting my hopes up--although i want to...

Well...

If it is true.. THIS ROCKS!

But probably not.. And if so.. when and what will they cost?

same old questions.. same old story..

Just because you have 4 processors in a machine doesn't mean it's any faster, and, in truth, the dual processors really make a deifference when the software is dual processor aware..

Originally posted by Some_Big_Spoon
Just because you have 4 processors in a machine doesn't mean it's any faster, and, in truth, the dual processors really make a deifference when the software is dual processor aware..

About all the major software I use is Multiple processor aware, even OS X is multithreaded.. So bring it on!!

Final Cut Pro, Shake, Combustion, LW, Photoshop (some but not all things), AfterFX, ...

Why not?

Double your pleasure Double your fun Double your power with a new quad powered G5.

Now where is my Ram Doubler.

Originally posted by Some_Big_Spoon
Just because you have 4 processors in a machine doesn't mean it's any faster, and, in truth, the dual processors really make a deifference when the software is dual processor aware..

Well, all native Mac OS X GUI applications spawn more than one thread. While it's true that most of these threads are typically idle, it does mean that you have less interrupting whatever thread is currently monopolizing a CPU and the potential to have far more happening at once productively. Of course for this to be truly productive you need an ultra wide memory system (current G5's dual channel ddr400 may do for light to medium work, but not for something like video editing in a quad system).

Remember - Mac OS X always has the CPUs in the box doing something and there is always something for them to do.

I guess that this is not true. Its just like the rumors about dual processor powerbooks.

But on the other side. Maybe its true and then they would rock !

I see a little chance.

Ok, im no comp wiz so this may be totally wrong but... couldnt you assign a processor to different uses/ apps? And have certian apps marked to be assigned to a totally seperate processor?
ex:
#1-Core system/ finder
#2-Photoshop/ plugins
#3-Dreamweaver/ Fireworks
#4-All those other little apps (safari, mail, exct...)

but anyways, i hope apple is reading these roumer pages cause that would be a first in personal computing that would pretty much landmark apple.

I might be wrong, but didn't moto bring out a quad proc mac when clones were around? I have a feeling it had four 132mhz procs or something similar.

Does anyone have any info on how this machine performed with Mac apps? I know it was a long time ago, but it would be interesting to know people's experiences with this.

Please note - this is only from my memory, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am!

I'd prefer to see IBM getting the memory controller on the chip before they go to a quad architecture. The 970's have serious bandwidth, but if they are running them through a single memory controller we won't see the scaling that we would like.

See here for opteron scaling:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~70023,00.html

This is why pretty much everyone is accepting that embedded memory controllers are the way to go.

Anyway, I think the rumor is wrong. This just isn't low hanging fruit at this point. Dual cores would be a lot easier.

Cheers,
prat