Woodcrest Processor in the PowerMac?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Several sites have pointed to a Computerworld article (http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/48AAEE3A287A6213CC25714F000230BC) which reports on Intel's upcoming low-power processors Merom (mobile), Woodcrest (server) and Conroe (desktop).

The article references comments by Intel's Asia Pacific sales and marketing group general manager, however, it also provides this (uncredited) tidbit:

Apple customers may be the first to enjoy Intel’s new CPU goodies, with the Woodcrest family of processors making it into Macintosh workstations as early as the third quarter. Woodcrest systems will be symmetric multi processing (SMP), with dual processors with up to four cores each. One such machine was demonstrated at IDF, running benchmarks under Windows XP 64-bit edition, showing eight active cores.


There have been no previous rumors about the use of Woodcrest in any Macs. Conroe has been speculated to be the processor used in the upcoming PowerMac, but at this time it all remains speculative.

[Peyton]

Eight cores?!? I kind of saw this coming but seriously, I don't know what I would need all that for! I'm sure I could make something up...:D

[zap2]

snap that would ROCK because the iMac would likly use Cornoe, which would rock

[DMann]

snap that would ROCK because the iMac would likly use Cornoe, which would rock

Woodcrest would put Apple way ahead of the competition.......
Since Leopard will be optimized to take full advantage of
multiple core chips, eight cores will fly sky high....

[carlos700]

A Power Mac with two dual-core woodcrest processors would be awesome! :cool:

[miloblithe]

Woodcrest would pull Apple way ahead of the competition.......

Wouldn't the competition use the same thing?

[maximumbarkly]

Wouldn't the competition use the same thing?

moot point. It just means that the Powermac will remain the high end machine it always was.

Also keep in mind that OS X could probably take advantage of this better than XP or Vista.

[Mord]

anyone who seriously thought apple would use conroe in the powermac is retarded, seriously why would apple go from a quad G5 to a single dual core intel core, it would just look lame.

sseriously who said that conroe was the powermac cpu replacement, whoever did should be added to my retard hall of fame.

woodcrest -> powermac, xserve

conroe -> imac

yonah, merom -> macbook/macbook pro/mac mini

no the imac will not overheat with conroe not too long ago the imac had a 2.1GHz G5 in it the core duo is used at the moment as it's the only decent intel cpu.

[KindredMAC]

...And what is the real attraction for anyone to buy a PowerMac/Pro Mac if it comes out this September? Other than Audio/Video Apple Apps, Adobe has stated that CS3 won't be out until FIRST HALF next year.

Unless 4 cores can make a difference in Rosetta I just don't see any pluses until Adobe is Universal.... but that's me being a Mac Graphic Artist.

[ChoMomma]

Here's some screenshots (http://www.fusionlangaming.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9875) of benchmarks done on early versions of the woodcrest cpu.



Enjoy :D

[Spanky Deluxe]

Eight cores?? How expensive is that going to be?!! :-O

The Quad G5 costs enough as it is but an eight core machine, Intel or not will probably clock in at 1-2k extra on the quad's price. That's just getting ridiculous!!

[j_maddison]

anyone who seriously thought apple would use conroe in the powermac is retarded, seriously why would apple go from a quad G5 to a single dual core intel core, it would just look lame.

sseriously who said that conroe was the powermac cpu replacement, whoever did should be added to my retard hall of fame.

woodcrest -> powermac, xserve

conroe -> imac

yonah, merom -> macbook/macbook pro/mac mini

no the imac will not overheat with conroe not too long ago the imac had a 2.1GHz G5 in it the core duo is used at the moment as it's the only decent intel cpu.

I totally agree. i think the only people who speculated that conroe would go into the Powermac were people on this forum, but at the same time there has always been others on here who've said all along that the Powermac would use the Woodcrest chip.

Powermacs have usually been compared to dual Xeons in benchmark tests, so it makes sense that the Powermac would get the Woodcrest chip and not Conroe.

I just hope Apple don't balls it up and go all cheapscate on us like they might be doing with the integrated graphics chipsets rumoured for the ibooks

Jay

[runninmac]

...And what is the real attraction for anyone to buy a PowerMac/Pro Mac if it comes out this September? Other than Audio/Video Apple Apps, Adobe has stated that CS3 won't be out until FIRST HALF next year.

Unless 4 cores can make a difference in Rosetta I just don't see any pluses until Adobe is Universal.... but that's me being a Mac Graphic Artist.

Someone always has to put a negative spin on things. Just because one (major at that) app isnt out doesn't mean there arn't people out their that aren't going to buy it. If worse comes to worse people will just boot into windows if they can't stand rosetta's performance.

[j_maddison]

Eight cores?? How expensive is that going to be?!! :-O

The Quad G5 costs enough as it is but an eight core machine, Intel or not will probably clock in at 1-2k extra on the quad's price. That's just getting ridiculous!!

Why would it cost 1-2k extra? I don't understand your logic. Their not priced per core, their priced per cpu, and the powermac would have 2 cpu's to give it eight cores. Mind you I, like you, have no idea what the price of a Woodcrest chip will be, but I doubt it will mean a machine thats 1 to 2K more.

Jay

[plinkoman]

makes sense, after all, the G5 is based off a server processor.

besides, thats about what it will take to beat the quad G5 now.

and i'm definitely thinking conroe for the iMac, after all, isn't it going to be cheaper and more powerful then merom?

[081440]

...And what is the real attraction for anyone to buy a PowerMac/Pro Mac if it comes out this September? Other than Audio/Video Apple Apps, Adobe has stated that CS3 won't be out until FIRST HALF next year.

Unless 4 cores can make a difference in Rosetta I just don't see any pluses until Adobe is Universal.... but that's me being a Mac Graphic Artist.


People like me will buy, as I use the PowerMac for FCP and DVD studio Pro, and I use Photoshop so rarely that rosetta will make no difference to me, when compared to the speed gained in rendering and encoding. :)

[Analog Kid]

I'd be surprised if the PowerMac was all Woodcrest. It would be prohibitively expensive... Intel charges quite a premium for their server class chips-- a premium that is not linearly related to performance. Apple would price themselves out of sales.

I'd expect Conroe. Maybe they'll throw together a high-end "workstation" that's Woodcrest based, but the bulk of the line will be the desktop chips-- just as you see with the Pentium/Xeon mix from most PC makers today.

[nagromme]

I thought four-core variants were not expected until 2007. Or is that just for Conroe, and Woodcrest is expected to start off with four?

I personally expect Conroe in PowerMacs (childish name-calling is encouraged), if that's what other desktops will use from other manufacturers.

But if Woodcrest shows up in a top model too, I won't complain!

How much more will a PowerMac cost with Woodcrest vs. Conroe, do you suppose? (Saving up just in case!)

[Analog Kid]

Why would it cost 1-2k extra? I don't understand your logic. Their not priced per core, their priced per cpu, and the powermac would have 2 cpu's to give it eight cores. Mind you I, like you, have no idea what the price of a Woodcrest chip will be, but I doubt it will mean a machine thats 1 to 2K more.
Jay
To say it's not priced per core is a little naive... While I would expect 2 four-core devices might be cheaper than 8 single-core devices, a four-core would certainly be more expensive than one single-core.

There's all kinds of factors that will go into the pricing of the device: silicon size and yield (which goes down as Si size goes up) are just two of the obvious technical costs, while marketing considerations and product line placement are non-technical drivers. On top of that you have system costs that are certainly not equal: chipsets, memory, power supply....

Doubling the number of cores could easily add more than $1-2k to the system-- take a look at Intel's price lists:
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/ (January Prices)

Add to that the cost of the chipset and memory and everything else and the price goes up pretty quickly.

[Danksi]

People like me will buy, as I use the PowerMac for FCP and DVD studio Pro, and I use Photoshop so rarely that rosetta will make no difference to me, when compared to the speed gained in rendering and encoding. :)

Ditto...

.. and going from an iMac G5 to something like this, I'd have no time to go make the tea!

Just hope the price stays the same..

[~Shard~]

Woodcrest PowerMacs would indeed be amazing! And here I thought we wouldn't see anything really cool until Cloverton was released. :cool:

[MacQuest]

woodcrest -> powermac, xserve

conroe -> imac

yonah, merom -> macbook/macbook pro/mac mini

I'm thinking the less expensive Conroe will also be used in a new, mini-tower form factor, home/small business targeted, fully upgradeable Mac tower, which I call the "Mac Pro mini" with at least one [but hopefully a couple] of model[s] in the $1000 - $1500 price range.

ENOUGH WITH THE "HEADLESS iMAC" REFERENCE, THAT'S JUST LAME AND THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PRODUCTS.

There is a HUGE product line and price gap [$1200] in Apple's current non-integrated display Mac line-up with the integrated graphics using, high end Mac mini @ $799 and the lowest end PowerPC based PowerMac @ $1999.

I can just see this being unveiled as the "One more thing" at WWDC '06 in August after SJ introduces the new professional class [price & form factor] "Mac Pro" workstation. The Mac Pro will be re-designed, and the Mac Pro mini will be a consumer [price & form factor] version of it.

So:

Woodcrest -> PowerMac [Mac Pro], Xserve

Conroe -> iMac, Mac Pro mini

Merom -> MacBook/MacBook Pro/Mac Mini

[Photorun]

...And what is the real attraction for anyone to buy a PowerMac/Pro Mac if it comes out this September? Other than Audio/Video Apple Apps, Adobe has stated that CS3 won't be out until FIRST HALF next year.

Actually Adobe is currently on schedule to hit February 07 or earlier. I've used Adobe apps under Rosetta, the only one that takes a performance hit that's substantial is Photoshop. Illustrator, because the way it handles vector data (simply moving X/Y points), though it takes longer to launch, once you're in Illustrator you can't really tell the difference much. As I do more vector based art than raster based I've been fine under Rosetta. And for everyone out there who's doing more vector art or using InDesign or Illustrator mostly Rosetta works just fine. Photoshop people can use it fine just have a little patience... pretend you're working on an old G4, which wasn't that long ago.

[nagromme]

There is a HUGE product line and price gap in Apple's current non-integrated display Mac line-up with the integrated graphics using, high end Mac mini @ $799 and the lowest end PowerPC based PowerMac @ $1999.
Agreed. There seems to be a lot of demand for something in the middle (preferably with upgradable GPU).

I expect Apple will release a midrange headless. Maybe a mini-tower, or maybe a maxi-mini (is that a word?), or maybe just a lower-spec'd full tower (cheaper for them than designing/manufacturing a whole separate form factor).

[Danksi]

Agreed. There seems to be a lot of demand for something in the middle (preferably with upgradable GPU).

I expect Apple will release a midrange headless. Maybe a mini-tower, or maybe a maxi-mini (is that a word?), or maybe just a lower-spec'd full tower (cheaper for them than designing/manufacturing a whole separate form factor).

Lower spec'd full tower, that's fully upgradable, would be nice.

[MacQuest]

There is a HUGE product line and price gap in Apple's current non-integrated display Mac line-up with the integrated graphics using, high end Mac mini @ $799 and the lowest end PowerPC based PowerMac @ $1999.

Agreed. There seems to be a lot of demand for something in the middle (preferably with upgradable GPU).

I expect Apple will release a midrange headless.

Yeah. Something to compete with those Media Center PC's in that $1000 - $1500 price range, especially now that Apple is including Front Row on ALL of their Macs.

It just makes sense. A smaller [or mini] version of the upcoming Mac Pro... Mac Pro mini. :)

[Spartacus]

I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!

[shanmui1]

I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!

And just think, in a few years, there might be hardware threading to make this look lame ........

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-04-13/#5359

[plinkoman]

I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!

additional cores and processors are not the equivalent of multiplying the frequency... :rolleyes:

completely different...

[Multimedia]

I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!Not really insane Spartacus if you work with video. But it'll be a good start. ;) Please allow me to clarify the situation and your misuse of the terminology. Not dual core quad core - you mean Dual Quad Core. Woodcrest processors are Dual Core. Kentsfield processors are Quad Core. This is NEXT YEAR not anytime this year.

And I must reinterate that there is nothing insane about these speeds when you work with video. I doubt they will be fast enough. My experience is that we will need a lot more than 24GHz worth of 64-bit power to get video work done fast. Bottom line is that simple consumer electronics type work with HDTV is a BITCH - no insult meant to any women here. I think perhaps 100 GHz worth of power might begin to solve the waiting game. And I think we have a few more years before we get there.

My understanding is that the 4-core Woodcrest processors are known as Kentsfield processors and that Intel has not scheduled to begin manufacturing them until early 2007. Therefore, I do not believe Apple will ship the 8-core Mac until after the January MacWorld Expo. I tend to think that it will want to ship with Leopard on-board to maximally take advantage of 10.5's superior multi-processing task delegation management powers.

Would Alden Shaw or some other know-it-all here please verify my understanding or correct me? This rumor could really get out of control unless we all understand 8-core Macs are not until next year. Thank you in advance for your assistance. :eek: ;) :rolleyes: :)

[Anonymous Freak]

Just to clarify...
Woodcrest is only two cores!

There.

The whole '8 cores' thing comes from two dual-core chips, with hyperthreading. Hyperthreading makes each core pretend it is two cores. Then you have two cores per socket, and two sockets. 2*2*2=8. Still only two sockets. Still only two physical cores per socket. You can have a similar setup right now using two dual-core Xeon chips. The current dual-core Xeons (and even the dual-core desktop 'Pentium Extreme Edition') have Hyperthreading. Each socket appears to the OS as 4 chips.

To explain Hyperthreading: Hyperthreading is a technology first introduced by Intel in their high-end server chips, the 'Xeon', a few years ago. It later trickled down to the desktop Pentium 4 chips, only to be dropped from the dual-core Pentium-D (then added back for the 'Extreme Edition'.) It makes one core present itself to the OS as two. The main purpose for this is to keep the processor busy all the time. Most single-threaded applications really have a lot of down time, waiting for information from main memory (or worse, disk,) leaves the processor with a lot of empty (wasted) cycles. Hyperthreading attempts to alleviate this by making the processor work on two threads at once, working on a second thread while the first waits on data.

So a two year old 'Pentium 4 Processor with HT Technology' (as Intel officially calls it,) only has one core, but pretends that it has two. It most certainly does not make the processor twice as fast, at ANYTHING, as a non-hyperthreaded chip, it does give some improvement, especially in multitasking situations. Some benchmarks have the improvement as much as 50%, but most are more modest, in the 10-20% range. (Going to a real dual processor or dual-core system can produce full 100% speed improvements in certain tests; but also often falls short of that.)

That means that a dual-core processor with hyperthreading will pretend to be 4 processors (and would get somewhere between 40% and 150% better performance than a single, non-hyperthreaded core in multithreaded environments.)

[freiheit]

Lower spec'd full tower, that's fully upgradable, would be nice.

Unfortunately the last time Apple gave us what we asked for it was quite crippled -- single 1.8GHz G5 with a 2/3 speed bus and (if I recall correctly) slower memory. Sure it was an okay machine but it cost the same as the same-spec'd iMac which also included an LCD display.

If Apple does go with quad core CPUs for the PowerMac, I would at least hope they keep a dual core for their mid-range unit without chopping specs.

[BRLawyer]

moot point. It just means that the Powermac will remain the high end machine it always was.

Also keep in mind that OS X could probably take advantage of this better than XP or Vista.

Yes, OS X already does...XP is less optimized for multiple cores. If this rumor is true, Apple would retain the lead in high-end desktops for at least 2 more years...the Quad is still unsurpassed, and the dual-dual Woodcrest would rock the bases of the PC industry.

I also believe Apple, as a flagship computer maker, might have a sort of "gimme first/I don't care about bugs" agreement with Intel, at least for a short period of time...this would ensure market entry advantage for the company, putting Dell (which is gonna move some gear to AMD), HP and others to shame...Apple is again leading the pack.

[BRLawyer]

My understanding is that the 4-core Woodcrest processors are known as Kentsfield processors and that Intel has not scheduled to begin manufacturing them until early 2007. Therefore, I do not believe Apple will ship the 8-core Mac until after the January MacWorld Expo. I tend to think that it will want to ship with Leopard on-board to maximally take advantage of 10.5's superior multi-processing task delegation management powers.

Would Alden Shaw or some other know-it-all here please verify my understanding or correct me? This rumor could really get out of control unless we all understand 8-core Macs are not until next year. Thank you in advance for your assistance. :eek: ;) :rolleyes: :)

Mr. WindowsShaw must be sleeping, but I may answer your question, in accordance with Intel's roadmap; in summary, Woodcrest is NOT Kentsfield.

Intel has 3 main platforms: Server, desktop and mobile.

Woodcrest falls under the server category, delivering DUAL-core processors
Server Platforms, and is planned for the 3Q of 2006 (which might be used for XServes or high-end MacPros). And also under the server category we're gonna have, in 1Q 2007, the QUAD-core Clovertown.

On the other hand, in the desktop arena (probably iMacs and MacPros for Apple), Conroe will be the DUAL-core processor for new machines, and is scheduled to arrive in the 3Q of 2006.

Later on we will receive the QUAD-core Kentsfield, scheduled for introduction in 1Q/2007.

See something similar here? Yes, there is a sort of symmetry in the roadmap.

One big family for improved DUAL-CORE processors (Woodcrest/Conroe), and another (where the BIG change will be) for QUAD-CORE processors (Clovertown/Kentsfield). That's all there is to it.

[bigandy]

mmmmm yes. :D

[THX1139]

Unless 4 cores can make a difference in Rosetta I just don't see any pluses until Adobe is Universal.... but that's me being a Mac Graphic Artist.

Uh... Howabout Final Cut Studio, Modo, Cinema 4d, they are all UB and need lot's of processing power? And don't forget you can boot into windows and run XSI, Max, Maya, etc, etc. No offense, but not everyone using a Mac uses it for graphics. Don't forget the music, scientific research and video industries. Also, MOST 3d people are on PC simply because they are faster and cheaper and have more programs available, but that might change if Mac finally beats the benchmarks and gets decent graphics cards. Current Macs, Both IntelMac and PPC are decent machines, but when it comes to 3d, High-end PC's kicks ass. Apple has a long way to go if it plans to win over that segment, and to do that it will need lot's of processing power AND support from video card suppliers.

[dllavaneras]

So, just to be on the safe side: Would I see a performance gain if I'm moving from a 700Mhz eMac? :rolleyes:

[Appleidee]

For all people thinking this is true, it isn't.
This rumor was posted by MacOSRumors* a few months ago. They also posted some idiot articles about all the multiple core business in Leopard. So this is all b*llsh*t!

WoodCrest runs at least 3,2 GHz. So 8*3,2 GHz 64-bit would be even faster than the Cell currently, but for Desktop computers that performance wouldn't even be reachable by mid or late 2007.

* For people who don't know: MacOSRumors was the first site to report on the Cube (with an image) since then they only take it on false rumors to get some audience and click their banners. Since they only talk b*llsh*t they should be - and are ignored by the Mac community, altough some people think there rumors are right.

Please verify in the future that such "rumors" aren't posted on MacOSRumors to avoid such things.

[timmillwood]

I am hoping for a new powermac to replace my current one in Q1 2007 i cant afford much more than £1500 but i hope for 4 cores if not 8, but i doubt they will put 8 in the lower models, there will probably be 2 4 cores and one 8 or 1 2 core 1 4 core and 1 8 core.

i also would like a blue-ray drive and a space to add a HD-DVD drive if my prediction of blue-ray coming out on top.

[MacQuest]

I am hoping for a new powermac to replace my current one in Q1 2007 i cant afford much more than £1500 but i hope for 4 cores if not 8, but i doubt they will put 8 in the lower models, there will probably be 2 4 cores and one 8 or 1 2 core 1 4 core and 1 8 core.

i also would like a blue-ray drive and a space to add a HD-DVD drive if my prediction of blue-ray coming out on top.

All that for not much more than 1500? Are you sure that's "all" you want? :rolleyes: ;)

Out of all those options you listed, you'll probably at most get the [as you put it] "1 2 core" [1 Core Duo is what I'm assuming you mean] desktop class processor [Conroe series if introduced @ WWDC '06, Kentsfield series if introduced at MWSF in Q1 '07] in a sub $1500 Mac Pro tower [probably a mini-tower design], or as I'm calling it, the "Mac Pro mini".

However, if the rumor on this thread is true, that Woodcrest server class chips will be used in the new Mac Pro towers [PowerMac replacements], then I would really like to see:

$1099 or $1199 - Mac Pro mini [mini-tower, Core Duo 1x desktop class - Conroe/Kentsfield]
$1399 or $1499 - Mac Pro mini [mini-tower, Core Duo 2x desktop class - Conroe/Kentsfield]

That would be very cool. :cool:

[Max on Macs]

But with Xeons they are crap for gaming and such, they're only good in servers, right? Because I use my PowerMac for pro apps, but I like to play WoW as well :o

[Glen Quagmire]

But with Xeons they are crap for gaming and such, they're only good in servers, right? Because I use my PowerMac for pro apps, but I like to play WoW as well :o

The performance hit is negligible and only worth worrying about if you are ridiculously fussy and overly concerned with frame rates. I run a four year old dual 1.8Ghz Xeon and it games perfectly well for a machine of that vintage. And anyway, whilst one CPU is gaming, the other can be running all the anti-virus software and so on in the background!

I would be most disappointed if the successor to the PowerMac ran Conroe. Conroe is going to be great, but from a marketing point of view, going from a dual CPU, dual core Power Mac G5 to a single, dual core Conroe is going to look pretty poor. People are seduced by numbers. Apple would have much more to shout about and could make a much bigger impact if they use dual, dual core Woodcrests.

Conroe would fit much better to fill the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, filling the middle of the range, whilst Woodcrest fills the top end.

I'd most likely plump for the top of the range "Mac Pro" as an upgrade for my PC and my 1.5Ghz Mac Mini. A pair of Woodcrests would be mighty fine.

[Max on Macs]

Fair enough. If it sitll runs games swell then that's good. I know with AMDs stuff the Opterons are actually better than Athlons, even for gaming. Maybe the Woodcrest will be like that?

[BRLawyer]

For all people thinking this is true, it isn't.
This rumor was posted by MacOSRumors* a few months ago. They also posted some idiot articles about all the multiple core business in Leopard. So this is all b*llsh*t!

WoodCrest runs at least 3,2 GHz. So 8*3,2 GHz 64-bit would be even faster than the Cell currently, but for Desktop computers that performance wouldn't even be reachable by mid or late 2007.

* For people who don't know: MacOSRumors was the first site to report on the Cube (with an image) since then they only take it on false rumors to get some audience and click their banners. Since they only talk b*llsh*t they should be - and are ignored by the Mac community, altough some people think there rumors are right.

Please verify in the future that such "rumors" aren't posted on MacOSRumors to avoid such things.

Sorry, this has been explained already...Woodcrest is DUAL core, not QUAD...therefore, we will see 4*3,2, nothing else, unless Hyperthreading is enabled in the Macs as well (honestly I can't recall if it's a Windows-only feature).

And yeah, MOSR is just some funny ********...they are as reliable as Bill Gates making predictions for the "road ahead"...

[DavidCar]

This is what theinquirer expects for Woodcrest speeds and pricing:

Quote:
The Woodcrest 80W series includes the 5160, which is a 3GHz, 4MB cache, 1333MHz system bus processor; the 5150, which clocks at 2.66GHz; the LV 5148 at 2.33GHz; the 5140 at 2.33GHz; the 5130 at 2GHz; the 5120 at 1.86GHz and the 5110 at 1.60GHz. ... Intel has priced up the Woodcrests for the third quarter launch, with the 5148 costing $520, the 5160 $850, the 5150 $700, the 5140 $450, the 5130 $320, the 5120 $255 and the 5110 $210.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30511

A four core Clovertown is to be pin compatible with a dual core Woodcrest, and a four core Kentsfield is to be pin compatible with a dual core Conroe. Quad cores are not expected until 2007, but since two quad cores were seen on an "Octavius" machine in Taiwan, I wonder if Intel would quietly make a small batch of Clovertowns ahead of schedule just for Apple.

[nagromme]

I would be most disappointed if the successor to the PowerMac ran Conroe. Conroe is going to be great, but from a marketing point of view, going from a dual CPU, dual core Power Mac G5 to a single, dual core Conroe is going to look pretty poor.

Only to G5 PowerMac devotees, which are only a fraction of Mac users, much less the overall market of potential switchers. Sometimes a spec seems to go backwards (even if the result delivered is a step forward)--that's just life. Such as when Apple went from an all-dual G4 tower lineup and then went back to including some singles again.

Dual-core Conroe will not look bad at ALL :)

And no quad-core anythings are expected this year anyway, so the question for now is one of dual-duals, as with the G5.

So... do we KNOW that Conroe can't be used in dual-dual configs? I've seen lots of assumption, but never found a link to OFFICIAL word on that question. TIA for any links to hard info on that!

Also, if anyone's stressed over having to "settle" for two cores, remember that you get diminishing returns from more cores. Duals aren't twice as fast as singles, and quads add even less benefit. Worthwhile, but not AS big a benefit as simply going to a much faster core to begin with. Which is what is about to happen. So while I'd love 4 Conroe/Woodcrest cores in my Mac tower this year, if I only have 2 cores the thing will still fly.

[Mord]

woodcrest is just conroe modified to run SMP.

they use different mobo's with different pin configs to accommodate SMP, AMD learnt that lesson with the athlon MP (you could turn a regular athlon into an athlon MP doubleing it's value to make cheap SMP rigs.

[nagromme]

woodcrest is just conroe modified to run SMP.

It that confirmed and official, or just a good assumption based on the current Pentium/Xeon arrangement?

Also, if that's the only difference, does that mean people are wrong to assume that Woodcrest would have certain disadvantages (like gaming) compared to Conroe? (Other than price of course.)

Is there any known disadvantage to Woodcrest other than price?

TIA

[Mord]

yeah, performence should be about the same, current xeons use a very diffrent socket and are diffrent in a few other ways from the regular P4, but woodcrest looks to be the same cpu with a couple of extra pins and SMP.

[dizastor]

snap that would ROCK because the iMac would likly use Cornoe, which would rock

Would mac users need to get braids in order to use the Cornrow processor?

;)

[paddy]

Just for my own interest how does a maxed out quad compare with its pc equivalent (amd or intel)? ( I realise that this could be a fairly bad question because I'm not giving specifics or anything, its just to satisfy my own curiosity)

[twoodcc]

wow, i can't wait for this. i better start saving my nickles and dimes :p

[shawmanus]

Generally Desktop processors do not support SMP. So neither Conroe nor kentsfield should support SMP. Woodcrest and Clovertown should do it though. Intel is releasing Tigerton for MP configuration around Mid 2007. Maybe we will see xserve with tigerton.

macpro with single proc and dual core should use conroe (lowend?)
macpro with dual proc and dual core woodcrest
macpro with single proc and quad core (kentsfield)
macpro with dual proc and quad core (clovertown).

I believe apple should offer all these options. First 2 should be hopefully available by Q3 of this year. Intel might sqeeze in kentsfield and clovertown by end of the year so by Q1 2007 we should see quad core mac pros.

Once Intel releases Tukwila in early 2008 with CSI and IMC that would be a good time for Apple to look at itanium platform as well.

[DavidCar]

Maybe it will be called Mac VPro:

http://news.com.com/Intel+picks+VPro+for+business+desktop+brand/2100-1006_3-6064267.html

[gekko513]

It makes sense to use Woodcrest in the PowerMac replacement. Here's what I hope for.

MacBook (Pro), Mac mini and iMac - Core Duo / Merom
Mac Pro - Woodcrest

I also think it makes more sense for Apple to introduce a standard mini tower now that they're on the offensive when it comes to market share. And I think this yet to be announced price competitive headless desktop will use Conroe.

Ideally they'll even offer it in a barebones configuration that only includes the case, the motherboard, the power supply and an OS X license.

[twoodcc]

Ideally they'll even offer it in a barebones configuration that only includes the case, the motherboard, the power supply and an OS X license.

i don't think that'll ever happen. i sure hope not.

[gekko513]

Just for my own interest how does a maxed out quad compare with its pc equivalent (amd or intel)? ( I realise that this could be a fairly bad question because I'm not giving specifics or anything, its just to satisfy my own curiosity)
A maxed out quad G5 is on par with a 2.5 GHz quad core Opteron or a 3.6 GHz quad Xeon give or take some depending on what you intend to use it for.

[gekko513]

i don't think that'll ever happen. i sure hope not.
Why not? Component compatibility issues? I know that's going to be a problem, but people who buy barebones solutions and build the rest themselves usually know that they have to spend some time selecting and troubleshooting components. It's like a hobby.

[~Shard~]

Actually Adobe is currently on schedule to hit February 07 or earlier.

Actually, no (http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/03/24/adobe.cs3.due.in.q2.2007/). Unless of course something more recent than this article from a month ago quoting the Adobe CEO has been released. :cool:

[twoodcc]

Why not? Component compatibility issues? I know that's going to be a problem, but people who buy barebones solutions and build the rest themselves usually know that they have to spend some time selecting and troubleshooting components. It's like a hobby.

i know, but not Apple. they aren't "cheap" like that. barebones just does not fit Apple. it's not their style.

[gekko513]

i know, but not Apple. they aren't "cheap" like that. barebones just does not fit Apple. it's not their style.
You're probably right, but I think it's more likely for Apple to enter the market for affordable but still flexible and expandable headless desktops now when they're on the offense when it comes to market share.

[tonyl]

So next year Q1, we'll see 8 cores (16cores w/HT) Powermacs. :D

[tonyl]

A maxed out quad G5 is on par with a 2.5 GHz quad core Opteron or a 3.6 GHz quad Xeon give or take some depending on what you intend to use it for.

That's pretty good for Qual G5 compared with Qual 2.5 opteron. Never heard of 3.6 qual Xeon, not counting HT.

[RatVega]

[QUOTE=Analog Kid]To say it's not priced per core is a little naive... While I would expect 2 four-core devices might be cheaper than 8 single-core devices, a four-core would certainly be more expensive than one single-core.

There's all kinds of factors that will go into the pricing of the device: silicon size and yield (which goes down as Si size goes up) are just two of the obvious technical costs, while marketing considerations and product line placement are non-technical drivers. On top of that you have system costs that are certainly not equal: chipsets, memory, power supply....

All these issues are addressed with each successive model... the number of cores per processor has very little impact as long as the yields are decent.

Doubling the number of cores could easily add more than $1-2k to the system-- take a look at Intel's price lists:
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/ (January Prices)

The biggest determinant in Intel price lists is the price they think the chip can command. This changes with adoption - the cost of going dual core with the new laptop was minor, but then Apple is featuring Intel - effectively this is both volume and co-op advertising, both drive the price down.

Don't forget that Apple is rumored to be developing Final Cut Extreme for very high-end video work. This is a much less cost-sensitive market that may be the target intro point of an 8-core product. They may take advantage of this position to price up their top-of-the-line PowerMac and leave "normal" FCP editors with a 4-core machine for a generation.


If this sounds like it was written by a guy who did time in the Intel trenches before going Mac, maybe that's not by accident...

[jettredmont]

Wouldn't the competition use the same thing?

The difference is in the OS and apps, just like it always has been.

Windows XP is OK with multiple processors, and server-side Windows apps do really really well with multiple procs, but your garden-variety consumer-grade Windows apps are just simply not up to multiple processors. Primarily, because up to very recently, you've had to pay through the nose to get a dual-CPU Intel or AMD box.

Apple has a lot longer history with putting dual CPUs in the hands of the masses, and that has had an effect on the multiple-CPU-readiness of OS X apps.

How many apps do you have on your Mac that are ready to take advantage of at least 2-3 cores in an 8-core box? Probably a lot more than you even know about! Your Windows counterpart is, other than a few oddball apps, going to be running each app on its own core, which is nice and fast and all, but nowhere near the speed you'll be zipping around with that app able to take on several cores at once.

Of course, the people least likely to see a difference here (between a Woodcrest Mac and Woodcrest WinPC) are those who run many small apps, or who run larger apps that are multi-threaded already. For them, it comes down to how well the OS manages shifting processes amongst multiple cores, and at that level, IMHO, Windows actually has an advantage.

[jettredmont]

So, just to be on the safe side: Would I see a performance gain if I'm moving from a 700Mhz eMac? :rolleyes:

No. You will still make just as many typos in Word, and still be able to read one web page at a time served up at approximately the speed your broadband provider is willing to send it to you.

However, you may be warmer while typing, and that may in fact limber up your fingers, so maybe ...

[zap2]

It makes sense to use Woodcrest in the PowerMac replacement. Here's what I hope for.

MacBook (Pro), Mac mini and iMac - Core Duo / Merom
Mac Pro - Woodcrest



Mac Mini, MacBook/iBook intel- Coure Duo
MacBook Pro/iMac-Merom
PowerMac intel/ Mac Pro/ Xserve- WoodCrest

[Willis]

anyone who seriously thought apple would use conroe in the powermac is retarded, seriously why would apple go from a quad G5 to a single dual core intel core, it would just look lame.

sseriously who said that conroe was the powermac cpu replacement, whoever did should be added to my retard hall of fame.

woodcrest -> powermac, xserve

conroe -> imac

yonah, merom -> macbook/macbook pro/mac mini

no the imac will not overheat with conroe not too long ago the imac had a 2.1GHz G5 in it the core duo is used at the moment as it's the only decent intel cpu.

If you realised, the Quad is basically TWO DUAL G5 chips. So the could in theory use the Conroe in the PowerMac (Mac Pro... whatever you want to call them)

Although, the Woodcrest would make it an AWESOME machine, no doubt about that.

[uzzislx23]

since the new intel macs have come, there has been decreasing G4 powerbooks, only 12" powerbook stand for a short while now.

[~Shard~]

If you realised, the Quad is basically TWO DUAL G5 chips. So the could in theory use the Conroe in the PowerMac (Mac Pro... whatever you want to call them)

Actually, Conroe cannot run in a dual-socket configuration, so a Conroe-based system is limited to two cores. :cool:

[boncellis]

Call me a softy, but I don't think anyone who can foresee Conroe in the desktop Mac is a "retard." From everything I've read, Conroe is going to be fabulous.

Will it put the G5 Quad to shame? I sincerely doubt it. Will it compete with it in its highest configuration? I really think it will be relatively close. Perhaps optimized code will make up some of the performance difference, or it could be that Apple has something up their sleeve to "distract" us from a slight discrepancy in performance from a next generation machine (like putting the pressure on Adobe for universal CS3 ahead of schedule...).

Wishful thinking--it makes you feel better, and it's cheaper than an upgrade. ;)

[corywoolf]

Lower spec'd full tower, that's fully upgradable, would be nice.
They already tried it with the single 1.8 Ghz PowerMac, and that was discontinued due to poor sales. I think a smaller form factor will make buyers more confident in their purchase. That way they don't think they are getting the weakest PowerMac. So I am thinking a mini G5ish tower that looks kind of like this:
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/7236G5-HD.jpg
Maybe they will introduce a 17" widescreen monitor to go along with it and the mac mini?

[twoodcc]

They already tried it with the single 1.8 Ghz PowerMac, and that was discontinued due to poor sales. I think a smaller form factor will make buyers more confident in their purchase. That way they don't think they are getting the weakest PowerMac. So I am thinking a mini G5ish tower that looks kind of like this:
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/7236G5-HD.jpg
Maybe they will introduce a 17" widescreen monitor to go along with it and the mac mini?

that looks nice

[gnasher729]

If you realised, the Quad is basically TWO DUAL G5 chips. So the could in theory use the Conroe in the PowerMac (Mac Pro... whatever you want to call them)

Most of the PowerPC chips in the past have been designed to be usable in a multi-chip system, including the dual core G5. I am quite sure that Conroe (and Yonah, and Merom) are _not_ designed to be used in a multi-chip system, so they cannot go beyond the two cores in a single chip.

Woodcrest is basically a Conroe, with multi-chip support added (so you can have a four core system made from two processors), with enormous caches added, and a matching price tag. For a dual core system, Conroe will run almost as fast as Woodcrest for much less money, and if you spend the money saved on more RAM, faster/bigger harddisk, faster graphics card, you will end up overall with a better system for the same price.

The problem is that Conroe is limited to two processors. Conroe systems will be a bit faster than Yonah systems (slightly bigger caches, higher clockspeed, more instructions per clock), but there will be no Conroe system for some time that can beat a Quad G5. So the high end PowerMac will be either a quad core G5 or a quad core Woodcrest.

[Glen Quagmire]

The problem is that Conroe is limited to two processors. Conroe systems will be a bit faster than Yonah systems (slightly bigger caches, higher clockspeed, more instructions per clock), but there will be no Conroe system for some time that can beat a Quad G5. So the high end PowerMac will be either a quad core G5 or a quad core Woodcrest.

Conroe is limited to two cores not two processors.

Woodcrest is limited to two processors, each with two cores.

Perhaps Apple could come out with a nice 4-way or 8-way system. 8 CPUs * quad cores * hyperthreading = plenty of power.

[Trekkie]

Who cares about the number of cores, the most important feature of this is chip is the power footprint and the pipeline. The Woodcrest also has the new shared cache. it's the perfect chip for the *Mac platform.

4 Core is Cloverton, not woodcrest, so that'd be EOY according to IDF announces. good news is it is supposedly socket compatible.

[~Shard~]

The problem is that Conroe is limited to two processors.

Incorrect. Please see my above post. Again, a Conroe-based system is limited to two cores, not two processors. :cool:

[Mord]

Call me a softy, but I don't think anyone who can foresee Conroe in the desktop Mac is a "retard." From everything I've read, Conroe is going to be fabulous.

Will it put the G5 Quad to shame? I sincerely doubt it. Will it compete with it in its highest configuration? I really think it will be relatively close. Perhaps optimized code will make up some of the performance difference, or it could be that Apple has something up their sleeve to "distract" us from a slight discrepancy in performance from a next generation machine (like putting the pressure on Adobe for universal CS3 ahead of schedule...).

Wishful thinking--it makes you feel better, and it's cheaper than an upgrade. ;)

so apple will come out and say "the intel mac pro it's just a bit slower than the quad, wooo go intel"

yeah,,,,, right.

if you think conroe is going in a pro mac it's not, all it's going in is the imac, the core duo is a stop gap as it's the only decent cpu intel has.

the powermac will have dual woodcrest's to have a total of 4 cores, while in a perfect world apple would want to offer a single dual mac pro and could use conroe they would need to design a separate logic board as the woodcrest and conroe will use different sockets and northbridge's.

they may offer a single dual woodcrest, but if i were apple i'd go for an all dual dual line.

[danielwsmithee]

A lot of the information found in this post is misleading and should be cleared up here is a link to an intel document that talks about their roadmap.

intel decoder ring (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/events/idfspr_2006/20060313_multicore_fact_sheet_decoder.pdf)

Conroe
To make things clear "Conroe" will not be able to be used in a Dual or Multi-processor configuration. Conroe is limited to ONE cpu with TWO cores. To be released 3rd quarter 2006.

Woodcrest
Woodcrest is the designation for the chip that is capable of a Dual-processor configuration, but is not capable of running in a multi-processor configuration. So the limit is TWO cpu's for a total of FOUR cores. To be released 3rd quarter 2006.

Kentsfield
Kentsfield is two dual-core CPUs in a single housing. In essence it is two Woodcrest CPU's in one housing. It is to be released 1st quarter of 2007. Which will not be available when the rumored Mac Pro's are to be announced in August.

Sossaman
I believe this is the most likely choice for the future Xserves due to it's low power consumption and small thermal footprint. It is a Core Duo exactly like the ones available now except it is capable of being placed in a dual-processor configuration.

Cloverton
This is the first true quad-core processor. It will be capable of a dual-processor configuration to make EIGHT total cores. Will be available first quarter 2007. Until then we will not see an 8-core Mac Pro.

Tigerton
This is the same as Cloverton except it can be placed in a multi-processor configuration. Giving you the ability to have four Tigerton CPU's or 16 cores. This will not be available until later in 2007.

Merom
This is Conroe but targeted at the mobile market. Will not be available until the Holiday shopping season of 2006.


So any announcements made in August will use Conroe or Woodcrest, and will not exceed four cores!

[~Shard~]

A lot of the information found in this post is misleading and should be cleared up here is a link to an intel document that talks about their roadmap.

intel decoder ring (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/events/idfspr_2006/20060313_multicore_fact_sheet_decoder.pdf)

Thanks for this, hopefully it helps some people here. I have been quoting this content many times in these Forums, but hopefully posting the document itself will assist further.

[DavidCar]

I thought this might clarify pricing expectations between Conroe and Woodcrest. I don't know how this compares with the price of the dual core G5 used in the Quad:

2.67 Ghz Conroe 4 MB Cache $530
2.40 Ghz Conroe 4 MB Cache $316
2.13 Ghz Conroe 2 MB Cache $244
1.86 Ghz Conroe 2 MB Cache $209

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1619

3.00 Ghz Woodcrest $850 (All 4MB Cache)
2.66 Ghz Woodcrest $700
2.33 Ghz Woodcrest $470
2.00 Ghz Woodcrest $330
1.86 Ghz Woodcrest $270
1.60 Ghz Woodcrest $230

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29510

2.66 Ghz Woodcrest over Conroe $170
1.86 Ghz Woodcrest over Conroe $70

Two 1.86 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.67 Ghz Conroe, $10

Two 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.67 Ghz Conroe $870
Two 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.40 Ghz Conroe $624
Two 2.00 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.14 Ghz Conroe $416
Two 1.86 Ghz Woodcrest over one 1.86 Ghz Conroe $331

Two 3.00 Ghz Woodcrest $1700
Two 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest $1400
Two 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest $940
Two 2.00 Ghz Woodcrest $660
Two 1.86 Ghz Woodcrest $540
One 2.67 Ghz Conroe $530
Two 1.60 Ghz Woodcrest $460
One 2.40 Ghz Conroe $316
One 2.13 Ghz Conroe $244
One 1.86 Ghz Conroe $209

[DavidCar]

Kentsfield
Kentsfield is two dual-core CPUs in a single housing. In essence it is two Woodcrest CPU's in one housing. It is to be released 1st quarter of 2007. Which will not be available when the rumored Mac Pro's are to be announced in August.

...

Cloverton
This is the first true quad-core processor. It will be capable of a dual-processor configuration to make EIGHT total cores. Will be available first quarter 2007. Until then we will not see an 8-core Mac Pro.
[/B]


I think Kentsfield is two Conroes in a single housing, and Clovertown is two Woodcrests in a single housing. Clovertown is not more "true" than Kentsfield. Tigerton should be interesting because of a new interconnection scheme between multiple processors.

[Church]

So I am thinking a mini G5ish tower that looks kind of like this:
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/7236G5-HD.jpg


No, not like that...

I smell the cube coming back, only this time with an aluminum case like that so it doesn't crack. ;)

(I would do a mockup, but my photoshop skills are limited. Curse you 4.0.1! :D )

[Willis]

Actually, Conroe cannot run in a dual-socket configuration, so a Conroe-based system is limited to two cores. :cool:

ahh i stand corrected. Well, im hoping you sort of gathered what i meant, but yeah... eitherway, the future of Apple looks exciting with Intel's roadmaps. 2007/8 will be insane. imagine a quad mobile chip by that time.

I also doubt laptops will get any thinner. 1inch has brought some issues up such as the DL option in a 15" MBP. Probs by then, we might also have a 20" screen too. crazy idea, but nice to think about.

[boncellis]

so apple will come out and say "the intel mac pro it's just a bit slower than the quad, wooo go intel"

You obviously missed the point, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Who said it will be slower? Conroe isn't even out yet, for one. The point I made is that it might not even be slower (it probably will be in some applications, but not across the board) because of other compensatory improvements tuned for the next generation.

The more you call people "retards" the more you look like one, btw.

[boncellis]

conroe is benchmarked, i'm far more informed than you your pulling on threads.

I suppose I don't put as much stock in the benchmarks as you do, I'm more interested in the real world experience.

Also, for the record, I didn't predict anything about the next PowerMac replacement, I just didn't think you calling people names was the right way to go with regards to a differing opinion.

You may be right about Woodcrest, that's not really the point. The point is you just don't know until it happens, and the more you belittle the folks here on this board the more ridiculous it seems. It's only your opinion, in the end.

[danielwsmithee]

I think Kentsfield is two Conroes in a single housing, and Clovertown is two Woodcrests in a single housing. Clovertown is not more "true" than Kentsfield. Tigerton should be interesting because of a new interconnection scheme between multiple processors.

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that Kentsfield is two Woodcrests dies in a single package, as Conroe does not have the on die logic to support Dual-processor configurations. Cloverton will be four cores all on the same die all four able to share from the same cache.

But then again maybe I am wrong and Tigerton will be the first to have that feature.

[danielwsmithee]

Two 3.00 Ghz Woodcrest $1700

That is going to be one expensive top of the line Mac Pro, pretty sweat though a Quad 3.00 Ghz machine. The current Quad G5 is very fast but this thing will fly.

My predictions.

Mac Pro Quad 3.0 Ghz
Mac Pro Quad 2.6 or 2.3 Ghz
Mac Pro Dual 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)

iMac 23" Gaming Edition 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 20" 2.13 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 17" 1.86 Ghz (Conroe)

I would actualy love it if you could just order the Mac Pro Quad or the Mac Pro Dual and then just select from 2-3 processor speeds for each configuration.

[Mord]

I suppose I don't put as much stock in the benchmarks as you do, I'm more interested in the real world experience.

Also, for the record, I didn't predict anything about the next PowerMac replacement, I just didn't think you calling people names was the right way to go with regards to a differing opinion.

You may be right about Woodcrest, that's not really the point. The point is you just don't know until it happens, and the more you belittle the folks here on this board the more ridiculous it seems. It's only your opinion, in the end.

well i'm baseing my knowledge both on what i expect and confirmation from people i know that work at apple.

i stand by my opinion that it's very very very very very unlikely and i'd bet my own life against it that conroe will be the powermacs cpu. woodcrest is an SMP conroe with a few minor modifications.

as for benchmarks they are real world apps, synthetic benches are mostly meaningless.

[danielwsmithee]

Hector:
Are you saying that you think the Quad 2.5 Ghz G5 will be faster then a new Woodcrest Quad 3 GHz?

The Quad G5 is very fast, and I expect it to be faster in certain applications with a lot of Altivec code and floating point calculations, but the integer performance of the Woodcrests should make the new Mac Pro seam much much faster.

As it is already the Core Duo based iMacs "feel faster" then the G5 based powermacs.

[Mord]

Hector:
Are you saying that you think the Quad 2.5 Ghz G5 will be faster then a new Woodcrest Quad 3 GHz?

The Quad G5 is very fast, and I expect it to be faster in certain applications with a lot of Altivec code and floating point calculations, but the integer performance of the Woodcrests should make the new Mac Pro seam much much faster.

As it is already the Core Duo based iMacs "feel faster" then the G5 based powermacs.


no i'm saying a conroe powermac would be slower than the quad.

[danielwsmithee]

no i'm saying a conroe powermac would be slower than the quad.
Oh OK. I couldn't quite figure out what all the debate was about.:o It is pretty obvious that a Conroe based Mac Pro would be slower then the current Quad G5, because it would be limited to two cores.

[hondaboy945]

Eight cores?? How expensive is that going to be?!! :-O

The Quad G5 costs enough as it is but an eight core machine, Intel or not will probably clock in at 1-2k extra on the quad's price. That's just getting ridiculous!!
I am sure that the eight cores will be an option for people that have a use for it (Final Cut, Maya, Adobe Universal, and Aperture users). I am really waiting to get a new powermac, or whatever they are going to be called, so I can rock it. My wife is a Photographer and I am a Simulation and Game Design Student, and we both use Photoshop, Aperture, and Maya. Now I can also use my new macs to code in .NET for my classes. I can't F'in wait.

[Multimedia]

Eight cores?? How expensive is that going to be?!! :-O

The Quad G5 costs enough as it is but an eight core machine, Intel or not will probably clock in at 1-2k extra on the quad's price. That's just getting ridiculous!!Boy I could not disagree more strongly. There is nothing ridiculous nor will there be anything too expensive about 8-core Macs. They are both NEEDED and WANTED by tens of thousands of multimedia professionals and moreover by MILLIONS OF CONSUMERS. For you to criticize the idea that there is a limit to how much power even the lowly consumer needs is to fail to understand how truly SLOW and CRAPPY what we have now really is. I have to wait HOURS to render huge Broadcast HDTV files into manageable archivable mp4 files because of this lack of power on todays so called state-of-the-art Quad. You sir are completely out of touch with reality. And it makes me very angry when people like you say enough is enough because IT ISN'T!!! :eek: :eek: I am sure that the eight cores will be an option for people that have a use for it (Final Cut, Maya, Adobe Universal, and Aperture users). I am really waiting to get a new powermac, or whatever they are going to be called, so I can rock it. My wife is a Photographer and I am a Simulation and Game Design Student, and we both use Photoshop, Aperture, and Maya. Now I can also use my new macs to code in .NET for my classes. I can't F'in wait.The 8 Core Mac will not cost a fortune. They will probably cost no more than about $4,000. And they will STILL BE TOO SLOW. Get it? :eek:

[DavidCar]

Some speculation based on an HP news release that a workstation expected in the next 30 days will have two Woodcrests.

http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1570003157.html

[DavidCar]

That is going to be one expensive top of the line Mac Pro, pretty sweat though a Quad 3.00 Ghz machine. The current Quad G5 is very fast but this thing will fly.

My predictions.

Mac Pro Quad 3.0 Ghz
Mac Pro Quad 2.6 or 2.3 Ghz
Mac Pro Dual 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)

iMac 23" Gaming Edition 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 20" 2.13 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 17" 1.86 Ghz (Conroe)

I would actualy love it if you could just order the Mac Pro Quad or the Mac Pro Dual and then just select from 2-3 processor speeds for each configuration.

I'm wondering if it would be sensible to have a Mac Mini Maxi with a 2.6Ghz Conroe, rather than having a Conroe flavor of Mac Pro or a Mini Tower.

[DavidCar]

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that Kentsfield is two Woodcrests dies in a single package, as Conroe does not have the on die logic to support Dual-processor configurations. Cloverton will be four cores all on the same die all four able to share from the same cache.

But then again maybe I am wrong and Tigerton will be the first to have that feature.

You make an interesting point, because we've been assuming Conroe doesn't have the logic for Dual-processor configurations. I don't know how well any of them do cache sharing.

But I found a site in Chinese that shows a picture of Clovertown with two chips, and also refers to an eight core machine. Probably from the recent Intel Taiwan Developer Forum. Now if only someone here could translate the Chinese...

http://it.enorth.com.cn/system/2006/04/13/001280624.shtml

Also:
Intel’s Chief technology officer Justin Rattner, who showed off a computer running two of the first four Clovertown chips produced, declined to say whether all four cores are on a single die, or if Clovertown would use two dual-core chips stuck together. Putting cores on the same die is more efficient since they can more easily exchange information and share resources.

Rattner said he envisioned a day when a single chip will have tens or even hundreds of cores, echoing the early era of the electronics industry when companies raced to see how many transistors they could squeeze on a chip. "It’s kind of like how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?" Rattner said. But he said there were significant challenges in breaking beyond eight or 16 cores, from how to provide enough system memory to how to write software to take advantage of the new features.

Adding cores requires careful planning. Energy efficiency, data input/output and memory latency (the time it takes data to go from memory and the processor and vice versa) will be major issues with each level of core expansion.

To get around some of these issues, Intel is conducting research into circuit design and chip architecture as it has in the past. In addition, the company is working with application developers to determine how the architecture of its chips can be optimized.
By working with one server application developer, Intel determined that it needed to make three small changes to the architecture of one of its future server chips. Before the changes, the application only ran well in simulations on chips with 16 cores. After that, performance began to decline, Rattner said. After the changes, performance continued to climb. "We got it to scale well past 32" cores, he said.


http://www.24x7updates.com/FullStory-News-Clovertown_A_quad_core_server_chip_by_Intel-ID-200891.html

[danielwsmithee]

But I found a site in Chinese that shows a picture of Clovertown with two chips, and also refers to an eight core machine. Probably from the recent Intel Taiwan Developer Forum. Now if only someone here could translate the Chinese...
From the looks of the pictures it does appear that Kentsfield, Cloverton, and Tigerton all use to dual-core dies slapped into a single housing. The only difference appears to be what configuration you can use the chips in. Maybe it will not be until 2008-2009 that we get four cores on a single die, and 8 cores in a housing.

[~Shard~]

From the looks of the pictures it does appear that Kentsfield, Cloverton, and Tigerton all use to dual-core dies slapped into a single housing. The only difference appears to be what configuration you can use the chips in. Maybe it will not be until 2008-2009 that we get four cores on a single die, and 8 cores in a housing.

Bring on Dunnington and Harpertown... :cool:

[Mord]

edit: i'm a basterd, seriously i've been makeing nasty posts, dont know what thats about so i'll think of something constructive

to people saying you'll update when the next gen of woodcrest comes out i really wouldn't until intel comes out with cpu's with the equivalent of hypertransport and an on die memory controller, as your not going to get much of a performence increase unless you get more cores.

[Anonymous Freak]

edit: i'm a basterd, seriously i've been makeing nasty posts, dont know what thats about so i'll think of something constructive

to people saying you'll update when the next gen of woodcrest comes out i really wouldn't until intel comes out with cpu's with the equivalent of hypertransport and an on die memory controller, as your not going to get much of a performence increase unless you get more cores.

Well, Intel won't move to an on-die memory controller for a while. They just prefer the chipset method. (It means that you can support newer memory technologies without major redesigns and reimplimentations of the core processor. Look how long it's taking AMD to come out with DDR-2 support...) But, Woodcrest should have a front side bus up to 1.33 GHz, much better than Xeon's current 800 MHz (or even Pentium Extreme Edition's 1.06 GHz.) That's 667 MB/s faster than the quad G5's FSB, and only 133.3 MB/s slower than the dual 2.7. (Although I believe Woodcrest will still use a shared FSB between sockets. Intel won't move to separate socket FSBs for a couple more revs, probably mid '07. But, again, this will be a chipset thing, so existing procs won't require any new setup for it, just a new chipset.)

[corywoolf]

No, not like that...

I smell the cube coming back, only this time with an aluminum case like that so it doesn't crack. ;)

(I would do a mockup, but my photoshop skills are limited. Curse you 4.0.1! :D )
Well they will have to make it larger then the mini, somewhat customizable, and be smaller/different looking then the PowerMac. I am thinking Aluminum case that holds up to 2 hardrives and up to 4 GB RAM. It would come stock with a DL SuperDrive and 2.40 Ghz Conroe 4 MB Cache ($316). One model, priced at $999. BYO Monitor, Keyboard, & Mouse.

[DavidCar]

... Although I believe Woodcrest will still use a shared FSB between sockets. ...

Woodcrest/Glidewell systems will have a dual independent bus to the processors, and four banks of fully buffered DIMMs. (see this image) I think the memory throughput is expected to be about 17 GB/sec.

http://www.2cpu.com/albums/intel_october_2005/glidewell_detail.sized.jpg

http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=109&page=3

The news today is that Woodcrest is expected in June. That would coincide with the expected release in about a month of an HP Dual Woodcrest workstation that was hinted at in my earlier post.

So would Apple be tempted to introduce a Dual Woodcrest workstation before WWDC if it was ready to go?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31316

[danielwsmithee]

So would Apple be tempted to introduce a Dual Woodcrest workstation before WWDC if it was ready to go?
I think Apple would release them new Mac Pro's as soon as they are ready. They seam to want to transition to Intel as fast as possible. The faster they get them out the more pressure it puts on Adobe to get their Pro Apps ready.

[DavidCar]

I think Apple would release them new Mac Pro's as soon as they are ready. They seam to want to transition to Intel as fast as possible. The faster they get them out the more pressure it puts on Adobe to get their Pro Apps ready.I agree. If Apple follows the Intel schedule noted in the Inquirer, we could see Woodcrest PowerMacs in June, Conroe iMacs in July, and Merom Powerbooks in August. I don't think they would want to see others getting ahead of them in using the latest chips.

One question I have is whether the new PowerMacs (I can't get used to saying Mac Pro) will need a graphics card made for it, or whether it could take any PCIExpress PC graphics card. I expect it would be an advantage to be able to use any card, but I don't understand the low level details.

[danielwsmithee]

One question I have is whether the new PowerMacs (I can't get used to saying Mac Pro) will need a graphics card made for it, or whether it could take any PCIExpress PC graphics card. I expect it would be an advantage to be able to use any card, but I don't understand the low level details.I would assume they will suport a subset of all the available PCI-Express cards. Hardware wise any would work it is just a matter of whether or not there is a driver available. I would bet on X1600,X1800,GeForce 6600, 7800 GT, Quadro FX 4500, and possibly X1900.

[DavidCar]

I would assume they will suport a subset of all the available PCI-Express cards. Hardware wise any would work it is just a matter of whether or not there is a driver available. I would bet on X1600,X1800,GeForce 6600, 7800 GT, Quadro FX 4500, and possibly X1900.Including ATI All in Wonder or professional FireGL cards? I expect such options would be of interest to the right people.

[Anonymous Freak]

Woodcrest/Glidewell systems will have a dual independent bus to the processors, and four banks of fully buffered DIMMs. (see this image) I think the memory throughput is expected to be about 17 GB/sec.

That's the one. Thanks for digging up the info!

[Lollypop]

I would assume they will suport a subset of all the available PCI-Express cards. Hardware wise any would work it is just a matter of whether or not there is a driver available. I would bet on X1600,X1800,GeForce 6600, 7800 GT, Quadro FX 4500, and possibly X1900.

Going to be a stupid question, but why was it so hard for the initial hacked versions of windows XP to run with the native graphics enabled, the drivers were available? Isnt the versions of the ATI cards on new macs somehow optimized for EFI? If this is the case cant we asume that its more than just drivers?

One thing I have noted about the diagram listed above is that there is only a single 16x PCIe graphics slot, if apple goes with woodecrest, wont they be then hurting their market with the currend dual graphics craze going on?

[G5power]

Well they will have to make it larger then the mini, somewhat customizable, and be smaller/different looking then the PowerMac. I am thinking Aluminum case that holds up to 2 hardrives and up to 4 GB RAM. It would come stock with a DL SuperDrive and 2.40 Ghz Conroe 4 MB Cache ($316). One model, priced at $999. BYO Monitor, Keyboard, & Mouse.

When / If that happens, I am there!! That is the system I want to replace my MDD dual. I was waiting to get a new monitor at the same time & broke down over the weekend and ordered the 2405fpw. So far with just a few minutes to check it out I love it! Can't wait to get a new Apple Mini Tower to go with it.

[DavidCar]

Going to be a stupid question, but why was it so hard for the initial hacked versions of windows XP to run with the native graphics enabled, the drivers were available? Isnt the versions of the ATI cards on new macs somehow optimized for EFI? If this is the case cant we asume that its more than just drivers?

One thing I have noted about the diagram listed above is that there is only a single 16x PCIe graphics slot, if apple goes with woodecrest, wont they be then hurting their market with the currend dual graphics craze going on?Great questions about the graphics cards in my opinion. I have no idea if the firmware on the cards has to be OSX compatible or not, or optimized for EFI.

About the PCIe slots, I note where it says "Configurable set of PCIe ports" and assume that Apple could configure them as necessary.

Also, the FSB in that diagram (which dates back to October) should be 1333 Mhz.

[steve_hill4]

anyone who seriously thought apple would use conroe in the powermac is retarded, seriously why would apple go from a quad G5 to a single dual core intel core, it would just look lame.

sseriously who said that conroe was the powermac cpu replacement, whoever did should be added to my retard hall of fame.

woodcrest -> powermac, xserve

conroe -> imac

yonah, merom -> macbook/macbook pro/mac mini

no the imac will not overheat with conroe not too long ago the imac had a 2.1GHz G5 in it the core duo is used at the moment as it's the only decent intel cpu.
I agree with your thinking, only if of course Conroe can be efficiently cooled without generating too much noise and effectively enough to avoid heat escaping. I did however assume it would be single dual core Conroe in the iMac and two of them in the PowerMac replacement.

This is the reason in many ways I am pleased to have a MBP for now and plan on a 20" iMac in 12-18 months. Home should then allow me to use a 64-bit dual core processor with power beyond any current consumer Mac or portable. Portable-wise would still suit me as it would then no longer be a main computer most of the time. If I moved into a career with access to an allowance for tech goodies, a nice 8-core Mac Pro would hopefully fit the budget.

Edit: I would however like Apple to increase their range and bring out a mid-level Tower between the iMac and Mac Pro that had a single Conroe, (with two processor option), and was basically a lower spec Mac Pro. Ideal for those gamers who wanted to switch but considered an iMac too low spec and a Mac Pro too pricey, (not me, just what others always use as arguments).

[Mord]

conroe cannot run SMP, an SMP conroe is woodcrest, this needs to be in a public service announcement or something.

[steve_hill4]

Well they will have to make it larger then the mini, somewhat customizable, and be smaller/different looking then the PowerMac. I am thinking Aluminum case that holds up to 2 hardrives and up to 4 GB RAM. It would come stock with a DL SuperDrive and 2.40 Ghz Conroe 4 MB Cache ($316). One model, priced at $999. BYO Monitor, Keyboard, & Mouse.
Similar to what I was thinking. Maybe we have even missed something here, Mac Pro will be Woodcrest and PowerMac will go Conroe, (so the PM slips down the order a little and the MP comes in as an even higher end system). Whilst they are at it, bring back an even lower specced, cheaper Mac Mini and a lower spec iMac, (perhaps as the others go Conroe, keep one with a lower speed Yonah which should by then be cheaper too). That gives a Mac for pretty much every need and makes it hard for any person to complain about them being expensive and/or underpowered.

I know Apple like to keep their range slimmed down, but they need to do something like this to increase market share really.

[Mord]

apple is not going to keep the powermac it's mac pro only. even if they did a sub pro midrange headless mac it wouldent be called the powermac.

[electronboy]

Fantastic! Maybe they will include expensive memory (FB-DIMM) that can't even be fully utilized by the limited architecture. WICKED! :rolleyes:

[steve_hill4]

apple is not going to keep the powermac it's mac pro only. even if they did a sub pro midrange headless mac it wouldent be called the powermac.
I know, (saying they are ditching the word Power), but let us cling to some hope.

[Mord]

such hope is futile.


as is resistence.

[dpaanlka]

Eight cores?? How expensive is that going to be?!! :-O

The Quad G5 costs enough as it is but an eight core machine, Intel or not will probably clock in at 1-2k extra on the quad's price. That's just getting ridiculous!!

I can think of computers much more expensive than that.

Go to http://www.sun.com/

[Anonymous Freak]

Going to be a stupid question, but why was it so hard for the initial hacked versions of windows XP to run with the native graphics enabled, the drivers were available? Isnt the versions of the ATI cards on new macs somehow optimized for EFI? If this is the case cant we asume that its more than just drivers?
Yes, it is more than just drivers. The two big hurdles for getting XP on an Intel Mac were:
1. Intel Macs use the new EFI instead of BIOS. They needed a 'Compatibility Support Module' to make EFI pretend it is BIOS. That is the big thing the onmac.net group did. (And what Apple released.)
2. Because Intel Macs use EFI exclusively, their video chip also contains the EFI firmware instead of a 'VGA BIOS'. The onmac group hacked together a basic VGA BIOS 'emulator' that enables only the most basic video support. ATI's drivers require a VGA BIOS on the card, and don't support direct EFI parts. Not sure how Apple did it. Since it doesn't require hacking the Windows install, I'm guessing that the firmware update added a VGA BIOS.

One thing I have noted about the diagram listed above is that there is only a single 16x PCIe graphics slot, if apple goes with woodecrest, wont they be then hurting their market with the currend dual graphics craze going on?

The chipset only has 16 lanes in the Northbridge, but you can add as many as you want on the Southbridge (or tacked onto the NB-SB link.)

[pilotError]

Thought someone might be interested...

Intel claims that its new 65-nm, dual-core chips are three times more power efficient than their 90-nm, single core predecessors.

They are also more powerful. The new Conroe chip for desktops will be 40 percent faster than the Pentium D960, the new Merom chip for mobile PCs will be 20 percent faster than the Core Duo T2600, and the new Woodcrest chip for servers will be 80 percent faster than the Xeon 2.8 GHz.



http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/28/77871_HNintel32nm_1.html