Yesterday, Apple introduced three new Power Mac G5s still based on the current PowerPC architecture. The new G5s are offered in one 2.0GHz configuration, one 2.3GHz and one 2.5GHz configuration, all of which are based on dual-core 90nm PowerPC 970MP CPUs. You can get Apple's pricing and more here but I just wanted to chime in with some of my thoughts on what's being offered:
Dual Core
All of Apple's new Power Mac G5s feature dual-core processors, but what it allows Apple to do is outfit the lower end Power Mac G5s with only a single processor and still offer the same number of concurrently executable threads as the older dual processor G5s. Granted you do lose some performance because the two cores now must share a single FSB, whereas the older dual processor machines had an independent FSB per processor. But any performance loss you'd see there is more than made up by the fact that each core now gets a full 1MB L2 cache.
The previous G5 cores were stuck with a relatively small (by today's standards) 512KB cache. It made the 90nm G5 die very small, but it also meant that performance wasn't as good as it could have been. One thing Johan found in his investigations with the G5 was that memory latency was pretty bad, and a small L2 cache does nothing to hide that.
For the two lower end G5s, the fact that the single CPUs are now dual core doesn't mean much, but the move to a 1MB L2 cache per core should result in a tangible performance increase in a lot of scenarios.
Apple does give up a bit of clock speed at the high end by moving to dual core, with the fastest G5 now topping out at 2.5GHz vs. 2.7GHz. The larger L2 cache will make up for some of that difference, but not all. Obviously the high end G5 now offers more than just a faster clock speed, it now features two dual-core CPUs. But, just like we've seen in the PC world, those applications that exhibit a high level of TLP will appreciate the dual dual-core CPU configuration, while others may actually run faster on the older dual 2.7GHz setup. For the most part, most OS X applications seem to be highly threaded in nature, and my money is on a dual dual-core configuration being the more desirable one.
DDR2-533
With the new G5s Apple has moved to DDR2-533, offering a total of 8.5GB/s of memory bandwidth. Unlike Intel's DDR2 platforms however, the G5s can actually use the added memory bandwidth. The G5 interfaces to the North Bridge via a bi-directional 64-bit FSB running at 1/2 the CPU clock speed. That means for a single 2.5GHz dual-core G5, there is about 10GB/s of bandwidth from the CPU to the North Bridge. For a dual dual-core 2.5GHz G5, that's 20GB/s of bandwidth as each CPU gets its own dedicated FSB. So in this case, there may actually be a tangible performance improvement from going to DDR2-533.
It is irritating that Apple didn't move to DDR2-667 yet, especially on their highest end configuration (and especially because it can use the bandwidth), but given Apple's relatively conservative nature whenever it comes to memory speeds it isn't a huge surprise.
PCI Express, at last
The move to dual-core is interesting, but given that the previous line of G5s were all dual processor to begin with, it's not a huge improvement. In my opinion, the biggest improvement to the new G5s is the move to PCI Express. And here's one thing I really do like about Apple, when they move to a new technology, they really move to it.
There isn't a single parallel PCI slot in the new G5s, instead you've got one x16 slot, two x4 slots and one x8 slot. The other interesting thing is that all of the PCI Express slots use a x16 connector, so although there is only one x16 slot (electrically), all four slots can fit a x16 card. Apple uses this support to their marketing advantage, by mentioning that the new G5s can support up to 8 displays through 4 dual-display PCIe graphics cards.
One thing that truly surprised me was the lack of two x16 (electrical) slots, meaning that these G5s aren't exactly configured for SLI. Given that NVIDIA is the GPU vendor of choice for Apple this time around, with the only PCIe GPU offerings coming from NVIDIA, you would think that Apple would put together a SLI-capable product with this line of G5s. There are a handful of reasons why this didn't happen and none of them really require too much thought. Apple seems to be very sensitive about preserving the usability of PCI (and now PCIe) slots, so occupying the area of virtually all four slots thanks to two large graphics cards probably wasn't at the top of their to-do list either.
Apple's new G5s get their choice of four different PCIe cards: a GeForce 6600 LE, 6600, 7800 GT and Quadro FX 4500. All of the cards support at least one dual-link DVI port, with the Quadro FX 4500 supporting two.
In the End
Apple has honestly done their best to make an attractive non-Intel Power Mac offering and obviously they had to. The dependency of OS X on high speed CPU/graphics communication means that the move to PCI Express graphics was a must, and I am pleased with the way in which Apple made that move. Offering four physical x16 slots, even if they aren't electrically x16, makes a lot of sense, and there shouldn't be any reason for PC motherboard makers to offer something similar. It may be a bit confusing, but the added flexibility is a definite benefit.
The move to dual core and DDR2 are both nice, but they will mean a lot more when we see the move to x86 next year. It is also interesting that none of Apple's performance comparisons are against x86 processors anymore :)
Dual Core
All of Apple's new Power Mac G5s feature dual-core processors, but what it allows Apple to do is outfit the lower end Power Mac G5s with only a single processor and still offer the same number of concurrently executable threads as the older dual processor G5s. Granted you do lose some performance because the two cores now must share a single FSB, whereas the older dual processor machines had an independent FSB per processor. But any performance loss you'd see there is more than made up by the fact that each core now gets a full 1MB L2 cache.
The previous G5 cores were stuck with a relatively small (by today's standards) 512KB cache. It made the 90nm G5 die very small, but it also meant that performance wasn't as good as it could have been. One thing Johan found in his investigations with the G5 was that memory latency was pretty bad, and a small L2 cache does nothing to hide that.
For the two lower end G5s, the fact that the single CPUs are now dual core doesn't mean much, but the move to a 1MB L2 cache per core should result in a tangible performance increase in a lot of scenarios.
Apple does give up a bit of clock speed at the high end by moving to dual core, with the fastest G5 now topping out at 2.5GHz vs. 2.7GHz. The larger L2 cache will make up for some of that difference, but not all. Obviously the high end G5 now offers more than just a faster clock speed, it now features two dual-core CPUs. But, just like we've seen in the PC world, those applications that exhibit a high level of TLP will appreciate the dual dual-core CPU configuration, while others may actually run faster on the older dual 2.7GHz setup. For the most part, most OS X applications seem to be highly threaded in nature, and my money is on a dual dual-core configuration being the more desirable one.
DDR2-533
With the new G5s Apple has moved to DDR2-533, offering a total of 8.5GB/s of memory bandwidth. Unlike Intel's DDR2 platforms however, the G5s can actually use the added memory bandwidth. The G5 interfaces to the North Bridge via a bi-directional 64-bit FSB running at 1/2 the CPU clock speed. That means for a single 2.5GHz dual-core G5, there is about 10GB/s of bandwidth from the CPU to the North Bridge. For a dual dual-core 2.5GHz G5, that's 20GB/s of bandwidth as each CPU gets its own dedicated FSB. So in this case, there may actually be a tangible performance improvement from going to DDR2-533.
It is irritating that Apple didn't move to DDR2-667 yet, especially on their highest end configuration (and especially because it can use the bandwidth), but given Apple's relatively conservative nature whenever it comes to memory speeds it isn't a huge surprise.
PCI Express, at last
The move to dual-core is interesting, but given that the previous line of G5s were all dual processor to begin with, it's not a huge improvement. In my opinion, the biggest improvement to the new G5s is the move to PCI Express. And here's one thing I really do like about Apple, when they move to a new technology, they really move to it.
There isn't a single parallel PCI slot in the new G5s, instead you've got one x16 slot, two x4 slots and one x8 slot. The other interesting thing is that all of the PCI Express slots use a x16 connector, so although there is only one x16 slot (electrically), all four slots can fit a x16 card. Apple uses this support to their marketing advantage, by mentioning that the new G5s can support up to 8 displays through 4 dual-display PCIe graphics cards.
One thing that truly surprised me was the lack of two x16 (electrical) slots, meaning that these G5s aren't exactly configured for SLI. Given that NVIDIA is the GPU vendor of choice for Apple this time around, with the only PCIe GPU offerings coming from NVIDIA, you would think that Apple would put together a SLI-capable product with this line of G5s. There are a handful of reasons why this didn't happen and none of them really require too much thought. Apple seems to be very sensitive about preserving the usability of PCI (and now PCIe) slots, so occupying the area of virtually all four slots thanks to two large graphics cards probably wasn't at the top of their to-do list either.
Apple's new G5s get their choice of four different PCIe cards: a GeForce 6600 LE, 6600, 7800 GT and Quadro FX 4500. All of the cards support at least one dual-link DVI port, with the Quadro FX 4500 supporting two.
In the End
Apple has honestly done their best to make an attractive non-Intel Power Mac offering and obviously they had to. The dependency of OS X on high speed CPU/graphics communication means that the move to PCI Express graphics was a must, and I am pleased with the way in which Apple made that move. Offering four physical x16 slots, even if they aren't electrically x16, makes a lot of sense, and there shouldn't be any reason for PC motherboard makers to offer something similar. It may be a bit confusing, but the added flexibility is a definite benefit.
The move to dual core and DDR2 are both nice, but they will mean a lot more when we see the move to x86 next year. It is also interesting that none of Apple's performance comparisons are against x86 processors anymore :)
30 Comments
View All Comments
byrdman21 - Friday, October 28, 2005 - link
Someone tell me why Apple didn't choose AMD's processors to power there x86 systems. Maybe you've already talked about that issue. But I'm a bit puzzled.byrdman21 - Friday, November 4, 2005 - link
Here's a comment from the "Power Mac G5 Technology Overview October 2005" - PDFBidirectional Frontside Bus
Leveraging the dual frontside bus architecture pioneered in the original Power Mac
G5, each dual-core processor has an independent data path to the system controller
running at up to 1.25GHz. Unlike conventional processor interfaces, which carry data
in only one direction at a time, this dual-channel frontside bus has two 32-bit point to-point links (64 bits total): One link travels into the processor and another travels
from the processor, which means no wait time while the processor and the system
controller negotiate which will use the bus or while the bus switches direction. This
enables data to move in opposite directions simultaneously—a dramatic improvement
over previous processor interfaces.
Seems as if this might be one of the bottlenecks in the system. It didn't say 64bit bidirectional bus - it said 64 bits total. However it is a 32bit bidirectional bus. Geuss I'm being picky. Still say Apple should've chosen AMD. Mac OS x on an X2 or Opteron; pretty sweet right?
kenan921 - Friday, October 28, 2005 - link
AMD simply does not have the manufacturing capabilities of Intel. If Apple had chosen AMD, and their machine sales took off as I'm sure they are hoping they will, AMD would have to struggle to keep up with the additional demand from Apple.By the way, I'm not in any way anti-AMD. All of my current systems are AMD powered, from my slot A 950mhz web server, to my Gateway A64 laptop.
highlandsun - Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - link
That argument sounds pretty weak. AMD has had ~16% of the x86 processor market. Apple's market share is what, 1-2% of the PC market? AMD would have no trouble supplying the paltry numbers that Apple sells.Personally I think Apple should be burning the midnight oil to build a powerbook around a PA Semi chip. The less x86 systems in the world, the better.
ceefka - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link
That's a bold step Mr. Jobs.What PCI-E soundcards can be used on a new Mac?
Is Apple expecting PCI-E DSP-cards anytime soon?
Clauzii - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
On Apples website they are NOT talking about gamingrelated PCI-E stuff but RAID and Videograbbing, which is also more what I would Xpect in and for a computer like a QUAD Core G5.Games are played on consoles and PCs - that´s a fact.
mlittl3 - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
For all of you asking about AMD's future, here is a link to an article with leaked AMD processor pricing guide (could be fake).http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=1...">http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=1...
Bascially, one can tell from the memo that the FX-60 will probably be dual core 2.8 GHz CPU (increments of 5 instead of two now to match Opteron plus two cores means +5 instead of +2) and there will be a dual core 2.6 GHz called 5000+. All of the single core Athlon 64s will be reduced in price to be below all the dual cores (except the 4000+ will be a little above the x2 3800+). All the semprons will be below single core athlons except the 3400+ sempron will be a bit above the 3000+.
Have fun dreaming of what you are going to buy. From the looks of things, AMD will be phasing out single core high speed processors sooner than we think. That means no 3.0 GHz in '06 Q1. :(
born sleepy - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
y'all can yammer about hardware all day, but the reason this processor switch is a non-event in the greater scheme is the operating system. even if a future Mac can run Windows natively, I really don't care. I want OS X. I don't care what iron is powering it. the next Power Mac could be shaped like an Oompa-Loompa painted fluorescent orange with peacock feathers sticking out its ass for all it matters.if I have to pay another $500-1000 for the Apple tax, sign me up if it means I don't have to run that "just as good" (er, yeah, OK, whatever) OS.
Viditor - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
Fair enough...to each their own. Actually, OSX is the first Mac OS that I can deal with because they moved away from assigning ram and went to dynamically using it.
However, to be fair you should probably check out MS Vista as well...if Mac can change for the better, I imagine that MS can as well...
mlittl3 - Sunday, October 23, 2005 - link
After the hacking of gamepc.com's review of Paxville Intel CPUs, I would love to see Anandtech review these Intel's only dual-core Xeon. The CPU is absolute rubbish and should never see the light of day according to the power and performance numbers at gamepc. Another review site like Anandtech, needs to come forward and confirm these pathetic results from the Paxville CPU.Sorry this is a bit off topic but it does relate to dual-core CPUs and Apple's embrace of Intel marchitecture.