PDA

View Full Version : Xserve July, Mac Pro (PowerMac) in August?


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
May 31, 2006, 08:52 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ThinkSecret reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0605intelxserves.html) that they have heard that Xserve will take advantage of Intel's upcoming Woodcrest processor. Woodcrest is Intel's successor to the current "Xeon" server-targeted processors. There had been reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060423221844.shtml) that the Woodcrest family of processors would be making it into "Macintosh workstations" as early as 3rd quarter. Indeed, Woodcrest, is expected in June (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060420043039.shtml) of this year, with the rumor site expecting the Intel Xserve to follow in July.

Meanwhile, PowerMac revisions (Mac Pros) are expected to make the transition to the recently announced (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060507211926.shtml) Core 2 Duo processors (codenamed Conroe). These processors are expected in July.

ThinkSecret speculates that the PowerMac revisions would come at WWDC, and indeed, MacRumors has received confirmation Intel PowerMac revisions ("Mac Pros") are to be announced at the WWDC Keynote which takes place Aug 7-11, 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060307132013.shtml).

Silentwave
May 31, 2006, 08:54 PM
I don't entirely believe ThinkSecret. I do think that it is logical for the XServes to come out first, though, as they will be 100% Woodcrest-Xeon. The Mac Pros will likely contain a mix of Conroe and Woodcrest, as if i understand the way it works correctly, a quad would need to have two woodcrests.

longofest
May 31, 2006, 08:54 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

rockandrule
May 31, 2006, 08:56 PM
What and who confirmed to MR that the Mac Pro will be released at WWDC?:confused:

WildCowboy
May 31, 2006, 08:56 PM
Think Secret's reputation has been pretty shoddy of late, but they aren't really saying too much with this one. It's pretty much along the lines of what people are expecting.

Now that Apple is using the same processors as everyone else, they're release schedule is going to follow the Intel roadmap very closely so that they can stay up-to-date.

kev0476
May 31, 2006, 08:57 PM
thinksecret hasn't been right recently, but this is also almost not new.

longofest
May 31, 2006, 08:58 PM
What and who confirmed to MR that the Mac Pro will be released at WWDC?:confused:

Steve Jobs. Don't you listen to his podcast?

risc
May 31, 2006, 08:59 PM
Is the Conroe even capable of doing SMP? A single dual core Conroe versus a dual dual core G5... I wonder which will be faster? :rolleyes:

puckhead193
May 31, 2006, 09:00 PM
god i hope its true. I just hope they make the tower smaller and a lot less heavy.
I plan on buying either an imac or PM in the summer. Only thing is with the recent release of Final Cut express going universal my hopes of an updated FCS went out the door. (Which was the reason of buying a new mac) o well i still might buy and get express to hold me over till it comes out...

longofest
May 31, 2006, 09:02 PM
Is the Conroe even capable of doing SMP? A single dual core Conroe versus a dual dual core G5... I wonder which will be faster? :rolleyes:

Every piece of information we have had up until now has pointed to "No" in regards to the question I believe you are really asking, which is can you place two Conroe chips together. Yes, Conroe is SMP capable because it is a dual-core chip, but so far we have not seen evidence that it will support dual-processor configurations, so in that respect, it will be similar to the Pentium 4.

Of course, if anyone has hard evidence to the contrary (or even hard evidence supporting this idea), please let us know.

p.s. I should note that it is most likely the chipset that accompanies Conroe that is most likely the limiting factor in deploying multi-processor Conroe systems.

macgeek2005
May 31, 2006, 09:03 PM
What?

They're not putting Conroe in the towers. No friggin way. Are they crazy? That CPU will be in cheap dell towers!!!

DTphonehome
May 31, 2006, 09:04 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

Ha, what a visual! Why? Because he'd by lying, or because you'd be pissed off at having the "slow" machine?

Mac Fly (film)
May 31, 2006, 09:06 PM
"ThinkSecret speculates" Oh, oh!:eek:

JRM PowerPod
May 31, 2006, 09:08 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

Does that mean it will do the photoshop test of that horse in 4 seconds? Coz it takes my Quad 16secs and my powerbook took 2.5mins. Somehow i believe that he can try to tell us as much as he wants that its 4-5 times faster but he can go to hell.......

longofest
May 31, 2006, 09:08 PM
Ha, what a visual! Why? Because he'd by lying, or because you'd be pissed off at having the "slow" machine?

Because I'd be pissed at having spent over 3 grand for a top-of-the-line machine, only to have him say a year later that I have just been witness to the biggest leap forward in pro-mac desktop performance in this decade.

That, and because he'd be lying while he is at it (so the independent benchmarks say).

ipacmm
May 31, 2006, 09:15 PM
I don't think we will see the Mac Pro's at WWDC or this July, but I think we could see some new Xserve's and it will be nice to finally see the Xserve having their own processor like they should have had from the start.

Mr. Mister
May 31, 2006, 09:22 PM
An Apple high-end desktop announced a month and a half after the processor inside it has been available and shipping? I don't think so, for both competitive reasons of letting Boxx and other high-end systems developers ship Conroe/Woodcrest-based workstations before Apple, and for keeping up the tradition of announcing high-end Macs well before they're CLOSE to shipping. :D

adamfilip
May 31, 2006, 09:22 PM
Because I'd be pissed at having spent over 3 grand for a top-of-the-line machine, only to have him say a year later that I have just been witness to the biggest leap forward in pro-mac desktop performance in this decade.

That, and because he'd be lying while he is at it (so the independent benchmarks say).

cry me a river

geeze.

having newer faster machines doesnt make your machine any slower to you.
if you are so worried.. ignore the news and enjoy your quad

Yamson
May 31, 2006, 09:30 PM
MacRumors has received confirmation Intel PowerMac revisions ("Mac Pros") are to be announced at the WWDC Keynote which takes place Aug 7-11, 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060307132013.shtml).
As we all know, nothing is "confirmed" until the moment Steve says the word. While it seems plausable, a confirmation of an Apple announcement over two months away is not really a confirmation.

decksnap
May 31, 2006, 09:39 PM
They'd better be putting Woodcrest in the Powermacs.

bosrs1
May 31, 2006, 09:58 PM
They'd better be putting Woodcrest in the Powermacs.
I agree. It'll be in high end PC towers so I'd be totally shocked if the best Apple manages in the Mac Pro is a lowly Core Duo.

Bubbasteve
May 31, 2006, 09:59 PM
Because I'd be pissed at having spent over 3 grand for a top-of-the-line machine, only to have him say a year later that I have just been witness to the biggest leap forward in pro-mac desktop performance in this decade.

That, and because he'd be lying while he is at it (so the independent benchmarks say).
It's called technology...deal with it. Sorry to be an @$$ but it's the way technology works my friend :o

it5five
May 31, 2006, 10:06 PM
I was going to get my Powermac in late June, but I guess I will hold off and see if Woodcrest or Conroe is going into the Mac Pro's.

thejadedmonkey
May 31, 2006, 10:55 PM
As we all know, nothing is "confirmed" until the moment Steve says the word. While it seems plausable, a confirmation of an Apple announcement over two months away is not really a confirmation.
confirmed, as in a 3ghz G5? :-p

ksz
May 31, 2006, 10:58 PM
Only 1 of 3 PowerMac configurations today is dual dual-core. It's possible that 1 of 3 MacPro configurations will be dual dual-core. The story only says that Conroe may appear in MacPro, but this does not rule out an "Oh, I almost forgot, One More Thing..." from the Stevenote. One of the tower configurations may be dual Woodcrested.

Dr. No
May 31, 2006, 11:00 PM
Do you think they will do anything with the Core 2 Extreme?


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2625

MacRonin
May 31, 2006, 11:02 PM
Because I'd be pissed at having spent over 3 grand for a top-of-the-line machine, only to have him say a year later that I have just been witness to the biggest leap forward in pro-mac desktop performance in this decade.

That, and because he'd be lying while he is at it (so the independent benchmarks say).

Dude, if you are pissed about a machine that comes out a year AFTER you have bought yours, well; my advise to you would be to STFU…!!!

And it isn't lying, it's marketing…

That's why they are ALL the biggest leap forw… blah, blah, blah…

Mmm… RDF… Mmm…

generik
May 31, 2006, 11:02 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

Lol@longofest

Feeling a bit sore spending so much on an obsolete PC architecture? :rolleyes:

kuwan
May 31, 2006, 11:06 PM
Every piece of information we have had up until now has pointed to "No" in regards to the question I believe you are really asking, which is can you place two Conroe chips together. Yes, Conroe is SMP capable because it is a dual-core chip, but so far we have not seen evidence that it will support dual-processor configurations, so in that respect, it will be similar to the Pentium 4.

Of course, if anyone has hard evidence to the contrary (or even hard evidence supporting this idea), please let us know.

p.s. I should note that it is most likely the chipset that accompanies Conroe that is most likely the limiting factor in deploying multi-processor Conroe systems.

Intel demonstrated Conroe processors in a Quad configuration at this year's IDF. (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/07/idf_keynotes_welcome_to_intel_3-point-0/) So yes, Conroe should support Quad configurations, but they aren't expected to ship any chipsets that support this until next year. The only Quad configurations that are expected to be available this year are with Woodcrest CPUs.

Which makes me wonder if Apple will use both Conroe and Woodcrest CPUs. They could use Conroe for Dual configurations and Woodcrest for the high-end Quad configurations.

generik
May 31, 2006, 11:11 PM
Which makes me wonder if Apple will use both Conroe and Woodcrest CPUs. They could use Conroe for Dual configurations and Woodcrest for the high-end Quad configurations.

I suspect Apple will do this too, take a commodity CPU and try to foist it as a workstation grade component in a "MacPro"

danielwsmithee
May 31, 2006, 11:13 PM
Intel demonstrated Conroe processors in a Quad configuration at this year's IDF. (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/07/idf_keynotes_welcome_to_intel_3-point-0/) So yes, Conroe should support Quad configurations, but they aren't expected to ship any chipsets that support this until next year.That was not Conroe it was Kentsfield, which is two Conroe dies in a single housing. Different then two housings.

If you want the truth read it from the source.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/events/idfspr_2006/20060313_multicore_fact_sheet_decoder.pdf

kuwan
May 31, 2006, 11:20 PM
I suspect Apple will do this too, take a commodity CPU and try to foist it as a workstation grade component in a "MacPro"

I wouldn't call Conroe a commodity CPU. Conroe isn't meant to perform like the current Core Duo (a mobile CPU), Conroe is meant to be a high-performance desktop CPU. There's nothing commodity about it.

IMHO, the reason why they wouldn't use Woodcrest across the board is because Woodcrest CPUs are very expensive and I doubt there will be a huge performance advantage of Woodcrest over Conroe. The biggest advantage that Woodcrest has is that it can be put into a Quad configuration and Conroe cannot (at least for now).

tonyl
May 31, 2006, 11:22 PM
Woodcrest only in Xserver? Then how about dual processors in Mac Pro?

tonyl
May 31, 2006, 11:23 PM
I wouldn't call Conroe a commodity CPU. Conroe isn't meant to perform like the current Core Duo (a mobile CPU), Conroe is meant to be a high-performance desktop CPU. There's nothing commodity about it.

IMHO, the reason why they wouldn't use Woodcrest across the board is because Woodcrest CPUs are very expensive and I doubt there will be a huge performance advantage of Woodcrest over Conroe. The biggest advantage that Woodcrest has is that it can be put into a Quad configuration and Conroe cannot (at least for now).
Conroe is not SMP enabled. You can't put two conroe in dual socket mb.

kuwan
May 31, 2006, 11:28 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

<sarcasm>
They'll introduce an 8-processor Mac Pro and claim that it's 2-3x faster than the Quad G5. ;) Which is pretty much what they did when they introduced the Intel iMac - claiming the dual-core iMac is 2-3x faster than the single-core iMac G5.
</sarcasm>

jiggie2g
May 31, 2006, 11:35 PM
I swear some of you people in this forum are complete snobs , "oh no not Conroe noooooooooooooo , but it's a "Desktop Class CPU" blah blah blah. We want the more expensive Woodcrest that has no performance advantage what so ever.

I swear seeing people talk about Conroe being desktop class cpu is like Bush making more PR Spin about Moral Values in America:p . You people are decieving youselves and your fellow mac users with this nonsense.

There are 2 differences between a Conroe and a Woodcrest.

1 . what makes 1 cpu a conore and 1 a woodcrest is testing those CPU's that pass the extremely rigorous test for Server Certification. Those that pass become Woodcrest those that don't are Conroe. this is not a bad thing as I suspect most people here will just do Folding , Photoshop , Video , Audio.

2. Woodcrest uses socket 771 which is for Mulit-socket setups as apposed to socket 775 for Conore , Woodcrest uses the 1333mhz FSB becuse it needs the extra bandwidth to accomodate another cpu.

Conroe is expected to make the jump to 1333mhz FSB when the Core 2 XE X8000(3.3ghz)is released in QT1 '07 , Intel has Confirmed a X6900(3.2ghz) 1066FSB in QT4 06

Dual Core Woodcrest vs Conroe at same clock and same cpu count will be exactly the same ...nothing to see here folks ..move on.

If you're calling the Core 2 a Desktop class CPU then I will call th G5 a cheap Power 4 spin off that kept getting it's ass handed to it AMD 64.

Conroe is to WoodCrest what Athlon 64 is to Opteron ..same CPU Core.

Last time I checked I can't recall an Athlon FX or even a 4800+ being in Mainstrean PC or any for under $2000

Intel has 5 Core 2 CPU's coming out next month for 5 different segments of the market. I doubt you will see a E6700 or X6800 in anything less then Dell's XPS series.

You People are too Stuck in the G5 days when Stevo' spoon fed you all ********* about how the G5 was a workstation killer.

The engineering samples are 1st spin tape outs and are already hitting 5ghz on exotic cooling and 3.6-3.9ghz on air, imagin when Intel has had time to rev. this baby 3-4 times. this
is probabally the best cpu architecture of the last 10yrs and you people have the nerve act like it's a bargin bin celeron.

I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM.

aztiml
May 31, 2006, 11:35 PM
Is it a good idea to ship pro machines before the pro apps from Adobe/Macromedia even go universal? Or will the latest and greatest chips from Intel overcome the slowness of Rosetta?

Seems like many of us are stuck with PowerPC until Adobe releases their new stuff.

kuwan
May 31, 2006, 11:36 PM
Conroe is not SMP enabled. You can't put two conroe in dual socket mb.

Isn't that what I said? ...

The biggest advantage that Woodcrest has is that it can be put into a Quad configuration and Conroe cannot.

MacMan93
May 31, 2006, 11:52 PM
May be apple will introduce the PowerMac (grrr Mac Pro) with two different proccesors. Like a $1499 Conroe and $1999 and up models with a woodcrest.

EvilDoc
May 31, 2006, 11:58 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

Thats how i feel :o

macenforcer
Jun 1, 2006, 12:13 AM
cry me a river

geeze.

having newer faster machines doesnt make your machine any slower to you.


Yes it does.

remember how fast the G3 was over the 604e? New machines made that processor a turtle and so will the new intels. Especially when that horse can be rendered in 2 seconds flat. :eek:

jrhone
Jun 1, 2006, 12:25 AM
Is it a good idea to ship pro machines before the pro apps from Adobe/Macromedia even go universal? Or will the latest and greatest chips from Intel overcome the slowness of Rosetta?

Seems like many of us are stuck with PowerPC until Adobe releases their new stuff.

sure it is....especially when there are MANY MANY of us in Audio and Video with Pro apps available now....but no pro machine.....Why make us wait when Adobe/Macromedia has nothing to do with our workflow?

Peace
Jun 1, 2006, 12:26 AM
Keep in mind Intel and Apple have been playing in the think tank on the new MacPro..Completely new design inside and out.And it's the top of the line Mac.There won't be anything but the best in it.For a price ;)

macenforcer
Jun 1, 2006, 12:34 AM
Keep in mind Intel and Apple have been playing in the think tank on the new MacPro..Completely new design inside and out.And it's the top of the line Mac.There won't be anything but the best in it.For a price ;)


Yeah, and for that price they had better come stock with at least 400gb HD and 1gb ram, airport and bluetooth included.

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 12:37 AM
May be apple will introduce the PowerMac (grrr Mac Pro) with two different proccesors. Like a $1499 Conroe and $1999 and up models with a woodcrest.

There is no point having a Mac Pro with a single Woodcrest. The only logical move for this would be:

Single Dual Core (Conroe) MacPro (low end)
Dual Dual Core (Woodcrest) Mac Pro (high end)

But given the past pricing of Xeons, I doubt a Dual Dual Core Woodcrest Mac Pro would be $1999

I'd like to see a mid-range Mac desktop - the Mac Mini and iMac are not really expandable (can't add a TV tuner card which is a common consumer use), and the Mac Pros won't be consumer/prosumer grade machines - they will be workstations.

seenew
Jun 1, 2006, 12:38 AM
So, Conroe in July... Will they be putting Core2's in the iMacs anytime soon? That's what I'm looking into getting for school, but I'm holding out because I'm scared of an immediate update..

mozmac
Jun 1, 2006, 12:52 AM
They gotta put something higher than the "Core" chips. This is Apple's top of the line Mac. Even though it's gonna have a stupid name like Mac Pro, it's gotta have some balls. Give us something worthy of gloating over.

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 01:07 AM
They gotta put something higher than the "Core" chips. This is Apple's top of the line Mac. Even though it's gonna have a stupid name like Mac Pro, it's gotta have some balls. Give us something worthy of gloating over.

I may be wrong, but I think Intel only really has x86 chip "families" now:

Celeron (el-cheapo, not used by Apple to date, probably because there is no Yonah based celeron yet)
Core (replacing Pentium IV and Pentium M)
Xeon (for workstations and servers)

Most high-end PCs will soon be using Core chips.

Edit: And there's no way Apple would put an end-of-the-line Pentium IV in a Mac Pro!

THX1139
Jun 1, 2006, 01:38 AM
I'm thinking, don't be surprised if Apple only updates the dual processor PowerMacs and leaves the Quad in the lineup until 1st quarter '07. For what purpose you ask? Well, the Quad PPC is still a great machine and we are still a long way to Photoshop/Illustrator/Maya 3D/Lightwave/etc. binaries. What might happen is, Conroe in low-end and mid-range MacPro's. Then, after the first of the year (MacworldSF?), the new Intel Quad will be announced. Maybe in a new design! I agree with some of the OP's on this thread, Woodcrest is too expensive. I almost hope they DON'T use Woodcrest because I probably won't be able to afford it! ;)

I doubt Apple will use Conroe in anything other than dual core pro desktop machines. Woodcrest will go into Xserve and when the next generation Conroe (Kentsfield) ships, the next generation Quad will come out with (2x DualCore Conroe). Don't flame me, but I also don't think iMac or Mini's are not getting anything other than Core Duo 2. Same as the Laptops. And I think they might even continue Yonah in the lower-end products to save money, like the Macbooks on down. MBP will get CoreDuo 2. That's a given.

Finally, the reason it would be better to wait for a new Intel Quad is because Kentsfield will really be the way to go cost wise. Releasing a Quad in August using Woodcrest would be a bad idea, especially with a more cost effective solution coming first quarter of the year. If Apple sticks with the Woodcrest line for anything other than a super-highend system or Xserve, they will price themselves out of the desktop market. Who here really thinks Apple can release a Quad Woodcrest for less than 5K? I don't...least not until the price comes down.

javierbds
Jun 1, 2006, 01:49 AM
Lol@longofest

Feeling a bit sore spending so much on an obsolete PC architecture? :rolleyes:

Mmmm ...
<BigSentenceMode>
The only thing that makes a hw architecture obsolete is sw or its absence (that ... and corporate stupidity, cough alpha ...).
The only thing that makes sw obsolete is bloatware or sw non extensibility (that ... and releasing betas).
</BigSentenceMode>
The market has its ways ... There are gotchas:
My k7 system is noticeable faster on real tasks than a P4 more than twice its MHz count (and about 2 years younger) ... It is telling that Intel's median MHz count has gone down recently (while improving hw arch) ... AMD's speed count was TOTALLY justified as Intel was selling highly oscillating crapware ...
It seems, at last, this year Intel may have something with a capability similar to G4's Altivec ... :rolleyes:
I always hated the guts (literally, from a programmable POV) of x86 arch ... Intel's hw optimization of sw gave us the P4 (shudders ...)
OTOH, multicore is sexy, low power too ... Intel is making a comeback and Apple saw it and decided to change horses (Apple's horse was dying anyway, I'm sure we will see nice PPCs next year, but it was too late ...).
My last Intel was a 486 (RIP, sniff ) ... My next Intel will be a Merom or better :cool:

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 02:01 AM
I'm thinking, don't be surprised if Apple only updates the dual processor PowerMacs and leaves the Quad in the lineup until 1st quarter '07.

Couldn't agree more!

I just wonder if Intel have managed to convince Apple to try an Itanium based XServe in the high end. I doubt it :)

I also doubt Apple will go for the Core 2 Extreme Edition - these chips change too often.

ChrisA
Jun 1, 2006, 02:02 AM
My guess is that the PowerMac line will widen. There will be low-end power macs that are really just expandable iMacs with no LCD. These could use a single Conroe chp and there will be quad core Woodcrest Mac Pros. The Xserve will be a repackaged Mac Pro. The low-end Mac Pros might even be caled simply "Mac" but I kind of doubt it.

I'd like to see Apple build a $1500 headless box, posably in a reduced size tower. the imac is nice but do you really want to throw away a nice 20" LCD in three years when you want to upgrade the computer?

I just wonder if Intel have managed to convince Apple to try an Itanium based XServe in the high end. I doubt it :)


Itanium uses a different instruction set. It can not run the came software as the other Intel Macs. None of the Universal binaries could run on Itanium.

I was surprized the Apple went exclusively with Intel. Had they done a mix of Intel and AMD then they could have used Opteron chips in the high-end Power Macs.

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 02:20 AM
Itanium uses a different instruction set. It can not run the came software as the other Intel Macs. None of the Universal binaries could run on Itanium.

I know, I know - hence the :)

If Apple's software is as easily portable as they say, supporting another instruction set shouldn't be a huge issue. I didn't think universal binaries were an x86/PowerPC concept, more of a concept of having multiple binary executables in the same app.

Backwards compatibility with apps is not as big a deal on a server (most unix-based server apps would just need a recompile - I doubt there are many with Carbon dependencies). Intel is also working with Transitive on Rosetta-like software for Itanium.

I'ts also my vague understanding that the chipsets aren't that different between Itanium and x86 - certainly not as different as PowerPC chipsets and x86 chipsets.

So it's not that far fetched, but still very unlikely!

javierbds
Jun 1, 2006, 02:20 AM
I'd like to see a mid-range Mac desktop - the Mac Mini and iMac are not really expandable (can't add a TV tuner card which is a common consumer use), and the Mac Pros won't be consumer/prosumer grade machines - they will be workstations.
Aye, aye ...
In fact, iMacs are getting less tinker friendly (since they put the camera) ...
With the Mini we have some nice external extensibility for its size (stacking up stuff), the Mini is OK except the basic model is a little bit expensive for its target. But the iMac is now really closer to the eMac, not really faster than the best laptops and less serviceable! At least they have a socketed CPU (not like laptops :p ) ... Apple should allow more options for the 20'' model (and maybe release a bigger model) and make the 17'' (maybe removing optionally some stuff) the eMac. This is what they have made to the laptop line ...

G.Kirby
Jun 1, 2006, 02:23 AM
In regards to Xserve and OS10.4 server. Will the server software work on an intel Mac? we got a copy about a month ago and tried to install on an Intel iMac......it didn't work.....not even a little bit :confused: anyone else had this problem?

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 02:28 AM
Aye, aye ...
In fact, iMacs are getting less tinker friendly (since they put the camera) ...
... the iMac is now really closer to the eMac, not really faster than the best laptops and less serviceable!

If you compare the expandability of the MacBooks and "desktops"

MacBook = Mac mini, except Mac mini is not as user serviceable
MacBook Pro > iMac, because it has an express card slot.

At least there will be a range of options to expand the MacBook Pro - perhaps even a TV Tuner express card, but certainly nothing for the iMac unless you use Firewire (400 only!) or USB which are nowhere near as fast as an internal bus.

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 02:41 AM
In regards to Xserve and OS10.4 server. Will the server software work on an intel Mac? we got a copy about a month ago and tried to install on an Intel iMac......it didn't work.....not even a little bit :confused: anyone else had this problem?

It's my understanding that there is no way to buy a boxed copy of MacOS X (client or server) for Intel, or a universal version. The only way to get it is to purchase an Intel based Mac.

As there is no Intel based Mac that Apple would consider as server level (XServe or possibly Mac Pro), I think you may be out of luck. I may be wrong though!

MacQuest
Jun 1, 2006, 02:54 AM
May be apple will introduce the PowerMac (grrr Mac Pro) with two different proccesors. Like a $1499 Conroe and $1999 and up models with a woodcrest.

Yeah, I'm even thinking we might actually see 2 different tower lines.

1 or 2 Conroe based, consumer/gamer level mini towers @ $1,000 - $1,500 [simply called "Mac" or "Mac Pro mini"], and also 2 or 3 Woodcrest based, professional level full size "Mac Pro" towers starting @ $2000, probably priced just like the currrent PowerMac line-up, with the highest end model being a Core 2 Quattro/Quad @ $2999 - $3299.

Possibly even a high end model for $200 more @ $3499... with 20 gigs more hard drive space and in black. :p

Someone contact MacOSRumors to see if they'll actually be called "Mac Pro's" though, since they were DEAD RIGHT in predicting that the iBook replacement would not be called a MacBook and would retain the iBook name... morons. :rolleyes:

javierbds
Jun 1, 2006, 03:17 AM
If you compare the expandability of the MacBooks and "desktops"

MacBook = Mac mini, except Mac mini is not as user serviceable
MacBook Pro > iMac, because it has an express card slot.

At least there will be a range of options to expand the MacBook Pro - perhaps even a TV Tuner express card, but certainly nothing for the iMac unless you use Firewire (400 only!) or USB which are nowhere near as fast as an internal bus.
Agreed. But I think Fw400 is more than enough for many things, and there is a ton of stuff for USB2 ...

What worries me is, as someone said above, what happens after 2-3 years with an iMac? You cannot upgrade much of the internals ... (And now Intel changes socket for the 2nd rev of Merom, just before summer 07 ...). What is left is a just a cute TFT?

The situation with a box now is not much better anyway: in 3 years everything in the box could be hw incompatible with what the market will be selling ...

On x86 world people really don't upgrade much their boxes (except for more RAM, HD or DVD-CD recorders ...) because mainboards, sockets, size formats, buses ... keep changing faster than your need to upgrade. So by the time you are upgrading you can only keep the HD and the sound card !
If Apple is going to ride the x86 wagon then maybe this things are going to happen to Apple hw too ... No longer the: Apple machines last longer, they are usable more years that in Windows world, you can upgrade this and that ... :confused:

Hey I'm not a n00by any more ! :cool: (33 posts)

bigandy
Jun 1, 2006, 03:17 AM
It's my understanding that there is no way to buy a boxed copy of MacOS X (client or server) for Intel, or a universal version. The only way to get it is to purchase an Intel based Mac.

As there is no Intel based Mac that Apple would consider as server level (XServe or possibly Mac Pro), I think you may be out of luck. I may be wrong though!


Apple will release a Universal 10.4 server when the XServe comes out... there's nothing yet.

gnasher729
Jun 1, 2006, 03:19 AM
Is the Conroe even capable of doing SMP? A single dual core Conroe versus a dual dual core G5... I wonder which will be faster? :rolleyes:

Yes, it is SMP capable, just like the old Yonah chip. You have two cores in one chip. What it cannot do is have two or four chips working together, for four or eight cores.

In the end, I think Thinksecret is down to pure speculation, because everyone knows that the next time Thinksecret gets some real information, Apple _will_ find the source and hang them up by their balls. But their speculation is not good at all.

Intel says that Woodcrest is aimed at the server market and Conroe is aimed at desktop. But Apple doesn't care what Intel aims their chips at. People who bought a quad G5 box will be very happy with a quad Woodcrest box (eight cores), and you won't find anyone complaining that Woodcrest should go into servers and they would prefer a single Controe (dual core) because it is the proper chip for a desktop machine.

And people who need a server, but one that is cheap and easy to set up and maintain, will be quite happy with a cheap XServe machine with a single Conroe if it does the job.

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 03:22 AM
...and also 2 or 3 Woodcrest based, professional level full size "Mac Pro" towers starting @ $2000, probably priced just like the currrent PowerMac line-up, with the highest end model being a Core 2 Quattro/Quad @ $2999 - $3299.

I did a little digging and found this:

Intel will sell the 5160 Woodcrest, a 3GHz, 1333MHz part for $850; the 5150 2.66GHz 1333MHz part for $690; the 5148T for $520 - this is a 2.33GHz part; the 5130 2GHz at $315; the 5120 1.86GHz 1066MHz bus part at $250, and the 5110 1.60GHz 1066MHz CPU at $210. Ultra dense server Woodcrests will eat 40W

As there's no point using a Woodcrest in a single configuration (not really any performance difference with a Conroe at the same clock), the CPU prices alone would be twice the above.

I can't see Apple releasing anything below a 2.33GHz as a Quad, so the minimum CPU cost (without discount) is $1040 for Woodcrest.

I still think Conroe is more likely for the low end Mac Pro.

gnasher729
Jun 1, 2006, 03:26 AM
I was surprized the Apple went exclusively with Intel. Had they done a mix of Intel and AMD then they could have used Opteron chips in the high-end Power Macs.

The deal with Apple was a big marketing win for Intel. An enormous amount of free advertisement, and winning Apple when Intel looked very much behind in the game was very important to them. I am sure that Apple gets the best possible treatment from Intel, with all the help they need to build machines, with first access to new chips in large numbers, and so on.

When the deal with Intel was cut, AMD looked ahead in the high end, but Steve Jobs probably was told things about future developments that we were not told (at that time), and now it looks like Conroe and Woodcrest will put Intel in the lead. Even if they were not ahead of AMD, an exclusive deal with Intel will be better for Apple because they will get much better treatment from Intel.

There are even rumors that Intel is keeping the announced Conroe clock rates artificially low at the moment, so that AMD doesn't try to desperately to improves theirs, so that when AMD announces their next product Intel can just increase Conroe clock rates by 600 MHz.

tiramisu
Jun 1, 2006, 04:03 AM
what about the powerbooks... OOOOPS! oh, boy.... macbook pro, will they have in july a silence update to core 2 duo, too? (wow, so many 2s) ;-)

2ndPath
Jun 1, 2006, 04:45 AM
Agreed. But I think Fw400 is more than enough for many things, and there is a ton of stuff for USB2 ...

What worries me is, as someone said above, what happens after 2-3 years with an iMac? You cannot upgrade much of the internals ... (And now Intel changes socket for the 2nd rev of Merom, just before summer 07 ...). What is left is a just a cute TFT?

The situation with a box now is not much better anyway: in 3 years everything in the box could be hw incompatible with what the market will be selling ...

On x86 world people really don't upgrade much their boxes (except for more RAM, HD or DVD-CD recorders ...) because mainboards, sockets, size formats, buses ... keep changing faster than your need to upgrade. So by the time you are upgrading you can only keep the HD and the sound card !
If Apple is going to ride the x86 wagon then maybe this things are going to happen to Apple hw too ... No longer the: Apple machines last longer, they are usable more years that in Windows world, you can upgrade this and that ... :confused:


Is this really different from the macs with ppc CPUs? I mean there are cpu upgrade cards for some of them, but aren't they usually a similar price as a PC mainboard plus cpu? And upgrades of CPU, mainboard and ram advance the whole system to a new architecture, while the CPU upgrade alone does not help as much.

By the way, amoung the common upgrades of PCs you forgot the GPU, which presently seems to be the fastes aging component in a computer.

For the macs I guess upgrade cards for CPUs will still be available for Intel as long as the demand is high enough. The advantage of macs is in this case that there are still quite large numbers of computers with the same hardware sold. This makes the design of upgrade cards simpler than for generic PCs.

2ndPath
Jun 1, 2006, 04:58 AM
After Steve Jobs announced that every Mac should have the word Mac in the name and XServes are Macs, what might they be called?

A few suggestions:

Mac Serve(r)
xMac
Mac X
RackMac
Mac Pro X

Any other ideas?

Mord
Jun 1, 2006, 05:02 AM
no way in hell conroe is going in the "mac pro" they are assumeing it will as the mac pro is comming late probably to coinside with the uni version of photoshop.

Platform
Jun 1, 2006, 05:17 AM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

Welcome to the world of computing...I had that (well 2x-3x) slammed in my face 20 days after I bought my iMac ;)

Glen Quagmire
Jun 1, 2006, 06:27 AM
Yes, it is SMP capable, just like the old Yonah chip. You have two cores in one chip. What it cannot do is have two or four chips working together, for four or eight cores.


No, it is *not* SMP compatible. SMP stands for Symmetric Multi Processing. That means two or more CPUs, in two or more sockets. Not one CPU in one socket, as with Conroe.

Don't confuse cores with processors.

BenRoethig
Jun 1, 2006, 07:00 AM
Is the Conroe even capable of doing SMP? A single dual core Conroe versus a dual dual core G5... I wonder which will be faster? :rolleyes:

No SMP, and not as many PCI-e lanes as the woodwrest/5000x combo. I'm hoping that the Mac Pro ends up being the prosumer machine and there's an woodcrest based xStation above it or something. Then again, this is Apple we're talking about.

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 1, 2006, 07:12 AM
Mac Mini
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Mac Pro
MacServe
iMac

What's in a name? :D

scottlinux
Jun 1, 2006, 07:14 AM
http://www.melablog.it/uploads/power_mac_g5_cube.jpg

The new MacPro.

Core Trio
Jun 1, 2006, 07:16 AM
no way in hell conroe is going in the "mac pro" they are assumeing it will as the mac pro is comming late probably to coinside with the uni version of photoshop.


Meaning it wouldnt be out until Q1 or Q2 2007, comepletely throwing off the "intel transition will be completed by the end of the year" promise.

^squirrel^
Jun 1, 2006, 07:49 AM
Meaning it wouldnt be out until Q1 or Q2 2007, comepletely throwing off the "intel transition will be completed by the end of the year" promise.

I tell you what, if they do that then i'll be chucking £1500 at my PC in preperation for Vista.

I will only "switch" when a high end mac is out, due to Flight Simulator and the new version flight sim X.

I'll need a directX 10 GPU or the option to upgrade to a dx10 GPU.

If we get to mid Aug and still no high end mac then i'll just upgrade my PC to a conroe cpu and top of the range DX10 GPU.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 07:52 AM
No, it is *not* SMP compatible. SMP stands for Symmetric Multi Processing. That means two or more CPUs, in two or more sockets. Not one CPU in one socket, as with Conroe.

Don't confuse cores with processors.
But "processor" is just a name. A "core" is a complete processor (or CPU) in the classic sense - it just happens to share a piece of silicon with another processor/CPU/core. Intel calls the chip a "processor", but that's mainly for licensing reasons (a "single processor" license covers a "chip with 2 CPUs").

Why is the quad PMG5 called a "quad" and not a "twin"? Easy - it has 4 CPUs, or 4 processors, or 4 cores. It has 4 times the potential of a single chip with one core (where we all agree that "CPU", "core" and "processor" all mean the same thing).

Hyper-Threading and dual-core require SMP to be turned on in the operating system - otherwise there would be no way to control two separate hardware threads.

A pair of single-core chips and a single dual-core chip are both SMP capable systems -- you have to use a multi-processor operating system for them.

To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing

"The most popular entry level SMP systems use the x86 instruction set architecture and are based on Intel’s Xeon, Pentium D and Core Duo processors or AMD’s Athlon64 X2 or Opteron 200 series processors."

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html

"Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent."


Don't confuse cores with processors with CPUs with sockets.

For the operating system software, for the most part "core" == "processor" == "CPU". Two exceptions
For licensing purposes, the number of processors might be reduced. For example, XP Home won't run SMP on a dual-socket machine, but it does enable SMP for Hyper-Threaded or Dual-Core systems.
If the architecture is not symmetric (non-uniform), scheduling and memory routines might optimize based on the actual topology.


The OS usually doesn't need to worry about "sockets" (unless you're doing TCP/IP programming).

kuwan
Jun 1, 2006, 08:36 AM
I'm surprised that no one seems to be talking about the pending 64-bit transition that will be coming with the new PowerMac line (Mac Pro line).

There are a lot of issues that Apple will need to work out with the new Core 2 processors (Conroe, Memron, Woodcrest, etc.). The Core 2 line of CPUs are all going to be 64-bit processors, the problem that Apple has is that they don't have a 64-bit operating system to run them on. Tiger is basically a 32-bit OS and Leopard is only going to be previewed at WWDC. This means that if they are going to be shipping Mac Pros at WWDC then they will be running in 32-bit mode on Tiger. Here are some of the issues:


Benchmarks that have been run on Core 2 CPUs have mainly been in 64-bit mode.
x86-64 (or EM64T as Intel calls it) has twice as many registers when running in 64-bit mode than it does in 32-bit mode. This means that 64-bit code can be much faster than 32-bit code.
When running in 32-bit mode on x86-64 you cannot take advantage of any of the CPU's 64-bit improvements (additional registers, larger address space, etc.).
Apple will only have a 32-bit OS (Tiger) when the Mac Pros ship, meaning that they won't be able to fully take advantage of the Core 2 CPUs.
Even though you can install more you probably will only be able to use up to 4 GB of RAM on the new Mac Pros, at least until Leopard ships next year.
Lastly, there will be yet another transition for users and developers to go through, from 32-bit to 64-bit.


Considering Apple hasn't said a word to developers about their future 64-bit plans on Intel then it means that it will probably be a long time before we see 64-bit applications that can fully take advantage of the new CPUs.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 08:43 AM
Even though you can install more you probably will only be able to use up to 4 GB of RAM on the new Mac Pros, at least until Leopard ships next year.


Intel and AMD chips support up to 64 GiB of RAM even in 32-bit mode - 32-bit Linux and 32-bit Windows Server operating systems do this all the time. This support goes back long before x64 was introduced. (Actually, the PPC G4 also supports 64 GiB of RAM in most models.)

You are right to question whether OSX 10.4 will support the feature, but the 4 GiB limit won't be due to any hardware restriction associated with running in 32-bit mode.

Platform
Jun 1, 2006, 08:56 AM
http://www.melablog.it/uploads/power_mac_g5_cube.jpg

The new MacPro.

Give us something more advanced than a G4...:cool:

Platform
Jun 1, 2006, 08:58 AM
licensing software might decide to treat a group of CPUs as a single CPU - as in hyper-threading or multi-core. For example, XP Home won't run SMP on a dual-socket machine - but it does run SMP with HT or dual-core.
When an architecture is non-symmetric, scheduling and memory management might optimize based on the system topology.

But "processor" is just a name. A "core" is a complete processor (or CPU) in the classic sense - it just happens to share a piece of silicon with another processor/CPU/core. Intel calls the chip a "processor", but that's mainly for licensing reasons (a "single processor" license covers a "chip with 2 CPUs").

Why is the quad PMG5 called a "quad" and not a "twin"? Easy - it has 4 CPUs, or 4 processors, or 4 cores. It has 4 times the potential of a single chip with one core (where we all agree that "CPU", "core" and "processor" all mean the same thing).

Hyper-Threading and dual-core require SMP to be turned on in the operating system - otherwise there would be no way to control two separate hardware threads.

A pair of single-core chips and a single dual-core chip are both SMP capable systems -- you have to use a multi-processor operating system for them.

To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing

"The most popular entry level SMP systems use the x86 instruction set architecture and are based on Intel’s Xeon, Pentium D and Core Duo processors or AMD’s Athlon64 X2 or Opteron 200 series processors."

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html

"Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent."


Don't confuse cores with processors with CPUs with sockets.

For the operating system software, for the most part "core" == "processor" == "CPU". Two exceptions
For licensing purposes, the number of processors might be reduced. For example, XP Home won't run SMP on a dual-socket machine, but it does enable SMP for Hyper-Threaded or Dual-Core systems.
If the architecture is not symmetric (non-uniform), scheduling and memory routines might optimize based on the actual topology.


The OS usually doesn't need to worry about "sockets" (unless you're doing TCP/IP programming).

This person knows what they are talking about, listen while you can...great reasons/referances as ever ;)

novagamer
Jun 1, 2006, 09:05 AM
Do you think they will do anything with the Core 2 Extreme?


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2625

No. It's 2.93ghz, and It's $999, which is absurdly more expensive than the $800-850 (depending on what roadmap you look at) 3ghz Core Based Xeon coming out (woodcrest).

I can't believe intel has a faster xeon than their extreme edition processor, and in addition it's actually cheaper. Crazy.

I'm anticipating that there will be a $3499 dual 3ghz (quad core) Mac Pro released at WWDC, along with possibly lower end versions of them at $1999/2499, or else Conroe based core duo parts at similar prices.

If they try to pass off the extreme edition processor in a pro machine it will be a joke. Intel was going to have a new type of hyperthreading in the extreme edition cpus called HT2, but that got scrapped for the time being as they already have such an enormous performance lead with regards to AMD, at least on the desktop space.

Also, don't forget the verbal impact when Steve can finally say "We're a bit late, but we now have a mac at 3GHz." That alone makes it pretty likely.

Core Trio
Jun 1, 2006, 09:07 AM
I tell you what, if they do that then i'll be chucking £1500 at my PC in preperation for Vista.

I will only "switch" when a high end mac is out, due to Flight Simulator and the new version flight sim X.

I'll need a directX 10 GPU or the option to upgrade to a dx10 GPU.

If we get to mid Aug and still no high end mac then i'll just upgrade my PC to a conroe cpu and top of the range DX10 GPU.


Sorry if you misunderstood, i wasnt saying it wouldnt out until 2007, I was using that information to discredit the post above me that said the Mac Pro's would be out when Adobe goes universal

jholzner
Jun 1, 2006, 09:15 AM
I'm surprised that no one seems to be talking about the pending 64-bit transition that will be coming with the new PowerMac line (Mac Pro line).

There are a lot of issues that Apple will need to work out with the new Core 2 processors (Conroe, Memron, Woodcrest, etc.). The Core 2 line of CPUs are all going to be 64-bit processors, the problem that Apple has is that they don't have a 64-bit operating system to run them on. Tiger is basically a 32-bit OS and Leopard is only going to be previewed at WWDC. This means that if they are going to be shipping Mac Pros at WWDC then they will be running in 32-bit mode on Tiger. Here are some of the issues:


Benchmarks that have been run on Core 2 CPUs have mainly been in 64-bit mode.
x86-64 (or EM64T as Intel calls it) has twice as many registers when running in 64-bit mode than it does in 32-bit mode. This means that 64-bit code can be much faster than 32-bit code.
When running in 32-bit mode on x86-64 you cannot take advantage of any of the CPU's 64-bit improvements (additional registers, larger address space, etc.).
Apple will only have a 32-bit OS (Tiger) when the Mac Pros ship, meaning that they won't be able to fully take advantage of the Core 2 CPUs.
Even though you can install more you probably will only be able to use up to 4 GB of RAM on the new Mac Pros, at least until Leopard ships next year.
Lastly, there will be yet another transition for users and developers to go through, from 32-bit to 64-bit.


Considering Apple hasn't said a word to developers about their future 64-bit plans on Intel then it means that it will probably be a long time before we see 64-bit applications that can fully take advantage of the new CPUs.


Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.

^squirrel^
Jun 1, 2006, 09:15 AM
Sorry if you misunderstood, i wasnt saying it wouldnt out until 2007, I was using that information to discredit the post above me that said the Mac Pro's would be out when Adobe goes universal


Oh sorry (egg on my face)

Everyone is talking about these Macpro CPU's but what do you think the GPU will be? This would be a major factor for me to switch.

Core Trio
Jun 1, 2006, 09:25 AM
Oh sorry (egg on my face)

Everyone is talking about these Macpro CPU's but what do you think the GPU will be? This would be a major factor for me to switch.


Sadly thats a much tougher call to make as apple does not have an exclusive deal with ati or nvidia as they do with intel, but id imagine, if apple is going for a high performance workstation they will go with a high end GPU, and possibly a BTO otption for the best of the best (at the moment as these damn GPUs get outdated seemingly faster than any other computer component out there)

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 09:27 AM
After Steve Jobs announced that every Mac should have the word Mac in the name and XServes are Macs, what might they be called?

A few suggestions:

Mac Serve(r)
xMac
Mac X
RackMac
Mac Pro X

Any other ideas?

I think it's unlikely Apple will want to put Mac in the name of a product that's basically a UNIX server. In that market, I doubt it's a plus to highlight the fact the server is a Mac.

darrens
Jun 1, 2006, 09:30 AM
Everyone is talking about these Macpro CPU's but what do you think the GPU will be? This would be a major factor for me to switch.

Isn't the answer to this "whatever you want to put in it"? Sure it ships with a graphics card, but you can rip it out and replace it if you want, some PC gamers seem to replace their graphics card more often than the rest of their rig.

jeremy.king
Jun 1, 2006, 09:30 AM
I wonder if Apple will consider offering other OSes with the new Xserve/MacServe...

Solaris x86? Windows Server 2003? OS X Server? Suse? RHEL?

Opens up a HUGE bag of worms from a support perspective, but would definitely let them penetrate corporate USA...

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 09:34 AM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

I'll go with you.

devman
Jun 1, 2006, 09:35 AM
Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.

That's not true for Intel. The move to 64bit on Intel also comprises other architectural changes (e.g. registers to name just one) that do yield a speed improvement. 20% I think - although that is from my memory - I might be wrong about the exact percentage.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 09:53 AM
...but would definitely let them penetrate corporate USA...
Doubt it.

The x86 server business is pretty solid.

You have a lot of low priced "white box" manufacturers like SuperMicro and Appro that way undercut the Xserve price with similar features.

You have the top tier manufacturers like HP, IBM and Dell that provide more features for the same price as Apple. Or many more features for a higher price. (ILO, RAID memory, SCSI, embedded hardware RAID with large battery-backed cache, diagnostics, remote control, redundant redundancy...)

Both the top and bottom have wide product lines (1U/2U/3U/4U/5U/7U/blades...) with single/dual/quad and even octo and higher socket.

Simply putting Xeons into the Xserve won't open many new doors for Apple.

danr_97070
Jun 1, 2006, 10:02 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ThinkSecret reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0605intelxserves.html) that they have heard that Xserve will take advantage of Intel's upcoming Woodcrest processor. Woodcrest is Intel's successor to the current "Xeon" server-targeted processors. There had been reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060423221844.shtml) that the Woodcrest family of processors would be making it into "Macintosh workstations" as early as 3rd quarter. Indeed, Woodcrest, is expected in June (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060420043039.shtml) of this year, with the rumor site expecting the Intel Xserve to follow in July.

Meanwhile, PowerMac revisions (Mac Pros) are expected to make the transition to the recently announced (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060507211926.shtml) Core 2 Duo processors (codenamed Conroe). These processors are expected in July.

ThinkSecret speculates that the PowerMac revisions would come at WWDC, and indeed, MacRumors has received confirmation Intel PowerMac revisions ("Mac Pros") are to be announced at the WWDC Keynote which takes place Aug 7-11, 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060307132013.shtml).

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1970271,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 10:06 AM
Really? They Must Have Rocket Scientists Over At Think Secret! :D

Where's the Woodcrest Quad Prediction? Chickens! :p

BJNY
Jun 1, 2006, 10:10 AM
I'd like an Xserve RAID using SATA hard drives connecting via eSATA or MultiLane Infiniband, and I'd like an Xserve Mini (same height and depth as the RAID) with a Woodcrest CPU.

^squirrel^
Jun 1, 2006, 10:15 AM
Isn't the answer to this "whatever you want to put in it"? Sure it ships with a graphics card, but you can rip it out and replace it if you want, some PC gamers seem to replace their graphics card more often than the rest of their rig.

I dont think you'll be bale to do that. I pretty sure if Apple go with ATi lets say, then it'l only be a certain model as there would be driver issues for OSX.

As far as Windows on a MacPro then i guess it wouldnt matter what card you use, as all the drivers are available for XP.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 10:17 AM
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1970271,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
Sounds a lot like a dual Woodcrest, to me....

ChrisA
Jun 1, 2006, 10:26 AM
Tiger is basically a 32-bit OS and Leopard is only going to be previewed at WWDC. This means that if they are going to be shipping Mac Pros at WWDC then they will be running in 32-bit mode on Tiger. Here are some of the issues:

it will probably be a long time before we see 64-bit applications that can fully take advantage of the new CPUs.

The last statment may be true. But how do you know about the first? How do you know the size of the pointers in the kernel's internal data structures? I would asume that Tiger/PPC and Tiger/Intel share almost all the same source code. We don't know for sure because Apple has not realeaes Darwin kernel source for Intel but we can look at BSD UNIX onm which Darwin is based

Going back to the last stament. It could be that applications will run in a 32-bit user land and therefore be limited to 4GB RAM per application But is that so bad?

From a software devaloper's point of view I'd like to see all platforms become 64-bit in userland. Then if (say) I was writing a video edit application I could map ALL of the media clips into the address space and let the virtual memory system worry about bufferring the files into and out of physical RAM. But with 32-bits the programmer has to do this himself. But does an end user care much? I'm not sure but I think on the Mac quicktime hides this from the developer and he can just deal with frames. So really it's only the dvelopers at Apple and that should care much.

Many heavy duty proceses like a DBMS us a "process per client" model so a DBMS could have 4GB of address space per connected client

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 10:27 AM
Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.As one Quad owner who sees the benefit of 4 cores with so-called 32-bit applications like Toast and Handbrake - both of which can use more than 3 cores each, I don't understand what's what in the 32-bit vs 64-bit realms. But I do know that 4 cores is way faster than two cores when it comes to multitasking and multiprocessing and simultaneously recording, encoding and transcoding video from HDTV to DVD Images to MP4 files. It's not very scientific nor professional - in fact it's downright mundane consumer electronics type stuff. But I really need 8-16 cores running 3GHz each please. :) This kind of "work" takes way too long to do right now. I would like to complete this kind of process in about 10 seconds per transcode please instead of real time. It is incredibly boringly slow right now.http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1970271,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532They call it 4x4 but it's really 2x2 and like Alden says, "Sounds a lot like a dual Woodcrest, to me...." No biggie. IE The first Apple Quad Intel - star of the August 7 SteveNote. :)

kuwan
Jun 1, 2006, 10:29 AM
Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.

This is true for PPC but as devman pointed out, with x86-64 you have twice as many registers when running in 64-bit mode. This can lead to significant performance improvements, far greater than 20%. Some applications can see up to a 2x performance improvement.

Apps like MS Office or Safari wouldn't see much benefit but Pro apps such as Photoshop, Final Cut, etc. would likely benefit greatly by running 64-bit on Intel.

Another problem is that drivers will need to be rewritten to support a 64-bit OS X.

ChrisA
Jun 1, 2006, 10:32 AM
I'd like an Xserve RAID using SATA hard drives connecting via eSATA or MultiLane Infiniband, and I'd like an Xserve Mini (same height and depth as the RAID) with a Woodcrest CPU.

I think you are onto something there. Build a chasis with bays that can accept either a disk drive (inside a box) or an "CPU modual" inside the same shape box. Many people have found that for servers you don't need tons of processing power. What's needed is tons of I/O bandwidth. Using many smaller processor works better then fewer larger ones because with each CPU monual you also add one more ethernet controller, disk interface and "frontside bus"

But I don't think Mac OSX is setup to take advantage on this. Sound more like what you'd want to use to run Solaris or possably Linux

kuwan
Jun 1, 2006, 10:50 AM
The last statment may be true. But how do you know about the first? How do you know the size of the pointers in the kernel's internal data structures?

Read Apple's 64-bit porting guide (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/intro/chapter_1_section_1.html) (note that this is only for PPC 64-bit support):

Because 64-bit applications will be supported using a 32-bit kernel...

Before we go further, it is important to dispel a few common misconceptions.

Myth #2:

Myth: The kernel needs to be 64 bit in order to be fully G5-optimized.
Fact: The kernel never needs to directly address more than 4 GB of RAM at once. The kernel is able to make larger amounts of memory available to applications by simply using long long data types to keep track of mappings internally.


If you do read the entire article keep in mind that much of this does not apply to x86-64.

In order to support x86-64 Apple will need a 64-bit kernel because you cannot run 64-bit apps on a 32-bit kernel like you can with PPC. With x86-64 the kernel needs to be 64-bit in order to run 64-bit applications.

So what we're likely to get at WWDC is Mac Pros running Tiger with a 64-bit transition guide for Leopard.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 11:00 AM
How do you know the size of the pointers in the kernel's internal data structures?
Does it matter what the kernel uses?

If the entire system uses 64-bit pointers, then it's clearly a 64-bit system.

If a tiny piece uses 64-bit pointers, and the rest is 32-bit - it's not truly a 64-bit system.

sam10685
Jun 1, 2006, 11:08 AM
Is the Conroe even capable of doing SMP? A single dual core Conroe versus a dual dual core G5... I wonder which will be faster? :rolleyes:

Conroe.

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 11:28 AM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

I think that would be insanely unlikely. I'll be happy if they have a model that's even a little faster than the current quads. The quads will have the smallest improvement going to intel, no question about it. I assume it would take four cores of intel to match a quad G5, anyone know for sure?

What?

They're not putting Conroe in the towers. No friggin way. Are they crazy? That CPU will be in cheap dell towers!!!

They're not putting G5 in the towers. No friggin way. Are they crazy? That CPU will be in cheap iMacs!!!

no way in hell conroe is going in the "mac pro" they are assumeing it will as the mac pro is comming late probably to coinside with the uni version of photoshop.

I don't think that makes any sense at all. I don't think woodcrest will be in ALL towers, but there's no point in doing single woodcrest, and I doubt apple will only ship quad configs of the tower, the starting price would be way too expensive. Single chip conroe (dual core) on the low towers, dual woodcrest (four cores) on the high end tower. I'd love to see a budget small tower with a couple slots and drive bays as well.

Conroe.

Seriously? You think two cores of conroe will be faster than four cores of G5? What makes you think that? Considering a core duo is about the same speed as a similarly clocked dual G5, the conroes would have to be double the speed of the core duo. Are they?

jiggie2g
Jun 1, 2006, 11:47 AM
I think that would be insanely unlikely. I'll be happy if they have a model that's even a little faster than the current quads. The quads will have the smallest improvement going to intel, no question about it. I assume it would take four cores of intel to match a quad G5, anyone know for sure?

Not really read below

They're not putting G5 in the towers. No friggin way. Are they crazy? That CPU will be in cheap iMacs!!!

Very well said , ignore Hector he just dosen't want to see his shiny new Mac Pro get Trashed by guys like me who build custom PC's and overclock them to hell.


I don't think that makes any sense at all. I don't think woodcrest will be in ALL towers, but there's no point in doing single woodcrest, and I doubt apple will only ship quad configs of the tower, the starting price would be way too expensive. Single chip conroe (dual core) on the low towers, dual woodcrest (four cores) on the high end tower. I'd love to see a budget small tower with a couple slots and drive bays as well.

I have been saying this all week and the macmonkeys still do not understand that single cpu woodcrest is not an option as is cost more and offers no advantage over conroe.


Seriously? You think two cores of conroe will be faster than four cores of G5? What makes you think that? Considering a core duo is about the same speed as a similarly clocked dual G5, the conroes would have to be double the speed of the core duo. Are they?

Actually Core 1 runs the same speed as the G5 , Core 2 runs atleast 20% faster clock 4 clock , if u base this on Conore vs AMD64. It is pretty well know that AMD 64 and the G5 core even clock 4 clock. so you have your comparison.

so for argument sake lets measure this:

G5 @ 2.5ghz + 20% = 3.0ghz

Conroe @ 3ghz + 20%(the improvement over G5) = 3.6ghz

So the G5 would need to be clocked at 3.6ghz to match this CPU's perfromance.

so then the question is would you rather take two 3.6ghz G5's or 4 2.5ghz G5's? ...personally i'd the the two 3.6's

Core 2 Extreme(X6800) runs at 2.93ghz and will jump to 3.2ghz(X6900) in nov-dec then the 3.33ghz 1333FSB Monster comes out in Feb so this gap will only increase.

If the top end MacPro will contin dual woodcrest @3.0ghz then the Quad G5 will get destroyed in every benchmark.

so enough bitching about Conore you guys are getting much more then IBM or Moto would have ever given you cry babies.

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 12:13 PM
I have been saying this all week and the macmonkeys still do not understand that single cpu woodcrest is not an option as is cost more and offers no advantage over conroe.Well this MacMonkey has understood that for many months since Alden Shaw explained it to those of us who were paying ATTENTION way back in JANUARY in about 25 different posts. :eek: :) Actually Core 1 runs the same speed as the G5 , Core 2 runs atleast 20% faster clock 4 clock , if u base this on Conore vs AMD64. It is pretty well know that AMD 64 and the G5 core even clock 4 clock. so you have your comparison.

so for argument sake lets measure this:

G5 @ 2.5ghz + 20% = 3.0ghz

Conroe @ 3ghz + 20%(the improvement over G5) = 3.6ghz

So the G5 would need to be clocked at 3.6ghz to match this CPU's perfromance.

so then the question is would you rather take two 3.6ghz G5's or 4 2.5ghz G5's? ...personally i'd the the two 3.6's

and is the top end MacPro will contin dual woodcrest then the Quad G5 will get destroyed in every benchmark.

so enough bitch people about Conore you guy are getting much more then IBM or Moto would have ever given you cry babies.Duh! You don't have to get rude about it. Who are the "Bitch People"?

Why do you assume none of us know that? I thought everyone undestood that Conroe is the single Core 2 Duo processor and that the expensive Woodcrest is only for the Quads because it is the only one that can run in pairs.

Are you saying that none of us understand that Woodcrest is only for Quads and that Conroe is the dual core processor for the rest of the top of the line Mac Pros? 'Cause I am one who did and does. ;)

But why would you want two 3.6 GHz Conroe Cores instead of four 2.5 GHz G5s in the Quad G5? I find multitasking while crushing video to be completely problematic with the dual core 2.5 G5 while totally working on the G5 Quad. I would never revert to two cores ever again except in the mobile Merom @2.33GHz.

jiggie2g
Jun 1, 2006, 12:43 PM
Well this MacMonkey has understood that for many months since Alden Shaw explained it to those of us who were paying ATTENTION way back in JANUARY in about 25 different posts. :eek: :) Duh! You don't have to get rude about it. Who are the "Bitch People"?


I didn't mean "Bitch people" as u can see i edited my post to correct this , as i ment bitching. While you and AidenShaw may have known this since Jan it seems most of your mac bothers and sister still are subborn to want to understand and just want Woodcrest becuase it's a "SERVER CLASS" cpu reguardless of price or perfomance.


Why do you assume none of us know that. I thought everyone undestood that Conroe is the single Core 2 Duo processor and that Woodcrest is only for the Quads because it is the only one that can run in pairs.

Are you saying that none of us understand that Woodcrest is only for Quads and that Conroe is the dual core processor for the rest of the top of the line Mac Pros? 'Cause I am one who did and does. ;)

Have you even been reading some of the mindless post that have been up here in the past week. "I want Conore in my iMac" , "I want Woodcrest in all the G5's" not realizing that alot of thses option do not make any sense technically or financially.

Why would you want a hotter chip in an iMac when u can just swap your old one for a merom. some people here are still arguing that Woodcreast will kill conore clock 4 clock and that core 2 is 40% faster then core 1.


Why would you want two 3.6 GHz Conroe Cores instead of four 2.5 GHz G5s in the Quad G5? I find multitasking while crushing video to be completely problematic with the dual core 2.5 G5 while totally working on the G5 Quad. I would never revert to two cores ever again except in the mobile Merom @2.33GHz.

For the same reason when the dual 2ghz G5 was 1st introduced in 2003 and Jobs made that stupid claim about it being the fastest PC in the world. Then a few weeks later it got trashed in almost every benchmark by single core high clocked P4's and Athlons FX's.

I said that a 3.0ghz Conore = 3.6ghz G5 now if i had (2) 3.6gz Conroe cores as i may very well have after i OC my E6600 then I will have the equivalent of (2) 4.3ghz G5's , you tell me after this u still want your Quad G5.
, my reason in this is for evey other non multi-threaded app such as games , and a million other Things will benifit more from the high clock spped then extra cores.

Job's is the freakin' Karl Rove of the Tech Industry. Spin Master / ************ Artist Extraordinaire. Don't worry i still hate Gates even more.

Fabio_gsilva
Jun 1, 2006, 12:49 PM
Conroe.

It is not that clear to me...
I put my money on the quad, at least for now.

dante@sisna.com
Jun 1, 2006, 01:19 PM
But why would you want two 3.6 GHz Conroe Cores instead of four 2.5 GHz G5s in the Quad G5? I find multitasking while crushing video to be completely problematic with the dual core 2.5 G5 while totally working on the G5 Quad. I would never revert to two cores ever again except in the mobile Merom @2.33GHz.

Amen!

I would NEVER go back to two cores again either after using the Quad. I can jam out projects using Final Cut, Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Excel & Word (for Admin), Bridge, Flash Player, Art Dir. Toolkit, Etc in ways I NEVER could on a dual core.

The Quad is a multi-tasking BEAST of productivity in this area. I am SO delighted I have been taking advantage of these performance gains for the past 7 months. And all with software that runs pretty great RIGHT NOW.

Of course, I'll upgrade in 6 to 9 months after the bugs are worked out. By then my Quad Core G5 will have more than paid for itself.

DJO.

autrefois
Jun 1, 2006, 01:23 PM
Will someone at MR please let us know what sort of confirmation was received about this story? I know this has been asked before, but it doesn't seem to have been answered.

If it's just "unnamed sources close to Apple" or something similar, that's fine, but it would be good to have some indication. "Confirmed" by itself seems like a strong word to use unless there was some official statement either by someone at Apple or some other very strong indication (off-the-record remarks by someone at or close to Apple, etc.).

Thanks.

dante@sisna.com
Jun 1, 2006, 01:26 PM
I said that a 3.0ghz Conore = 3.6ghz G5 now if i had (2) 3.6gz Conroe cores as i may very well have after i OC my E6600 then I will have the equivalent of (2) 4.3ghz G5's , you tell me after this u still want your Quad G5.
, my reason in this is for evey other non multi-threaded app such as games , and a million other Things will benifit more from the high clock spped then extra cores.

Job's is the freakin' Karl Rove of the Tech Industry. Spin Master / ************ Artist Extraordinaire. Don't worry i still hate Gates even more.

It is obvious you have never used a Quad Core in a multi-tasking battle against the clock. I would bet big that the Quad would destroy a Dual Core 3.6 Gig Conroe especially under new releases of OSX. If you run a Quad with activity monitor open you'll see that the four processors REALLY shine in application switching.

If I am running a 3D render that takes 8 minutes on the Quad and your dual core conroe cuts it down to 5, lets say, that is 5 minutes where your box is still clogged up pretty good. With the Quad, I can immediately start the render, and move to Photoshop to process a very large 750MB image, or open a 200 page full color book spread in InDesign, or RIP 40 EPS book pages to SWF through Illustrator WITH NO NOTICABLE SLOWDOWN whatsoever. NONE.

The power is fantastic.

My bet is on the Quad for Sure. My dual 2.5 gig cannot even play at this level of multitasking. Not at all.

DJO

MacsRgr8
Jun 1, 2006, 01:29 PM
The Quad is a multi-tasking BEAST of productivity in this area. I am SO delighted I have been taking advantage of these performance gains for the past 7 months. And all with software that runs pretty great RIGHT NOW.

DJO.

Exactly.

Two very important words: RIGHT NOW

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 01:32 PM
so then the question is would you rather take two 3.6ghz G5's or 4 2.5ghz G5's? ...personally i'd the the two 3.6's

Why? Based on the results I've seen, an app that's well optimized for multiple cores will run better on the quad. A 45% increase in speed per core isn't going to beat a 100% increase in number of cores, unless you're running an app that isn't using the other cores well.

And the apps I'm running DO take advantage of the quad. Apple needs to ship a machine that outperforms the quad across the board, not just on apps that don't use the other cores. You don't really make the case that a dual core machine will be able to do that.

Peace
Jun 1, 2006, 01:33 PM
Will someone at MR please let us know what sort of confirmation was received about this story? I know this has been asked before, but it doesn't seem to have been answered.

If it's just "unnamed sources close to Apple" or something similar, that's fine, but it would be good to have some indication. "Confirmed" by itself seems like a strong word to use unless there was some official statement either by someone at Apple or some other very strong indication (off-the-record remarks by someone at or close to Apple, etc.).

Thanks.

I don't think MR is at liberty to give that sort of info out..

autrefois
Jun 1, 2006, 01:49 PM
I don't think MR is at liberty to give that sort of info out..

I realize MacRumors may not want to name the source(s) or get too close to indicating who the source(s) is affiliated with. In such cases though, it is common procedure in the media to say "unnamed sources familiar with [x]" or "a source who spoke on condition of anonymity".

Saying something has been confirmed without any indication of who has confirmed it is meaningless. Otherwise I could ask my cousin Vern if Steve Jobs will be named CEO of Microsoft next Tuesday, and then when Vern says "Yep!" I could write a news story saying it has been "confirmed" that Steve Jobs will be Microsoft's new CEO...

I've been reading MR for years and they usually do this, I think it was just an oversight this time.

nem3015
Jun 1, 2006, 02:18 PM
For those who like to read, this article from ExtremeTech:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970201,00.asp
:)

THX1139
Jun 1, 2006, 02:29 PM
What worries me is, as someone said above, what happens after 2-3 years with an iMac? You cannot upgrade much of the internals ... (And now Intel changes socket for the 2nd rev of Merom, just before summer 07 ...). What is left is a just a cute TFT?

The situation with a box now is not much better anyway: in 3 years everything in the box could be hw incompatible with what the market will be selling ... (33 posts)

Apple is not going to want you to upgrade your computer. They want you to buy a new one...especially if it's a consumer product. Expecting to keep an iMac or Mini current beyond 3 years is not profitable for Apple. Especially at that price point. Why someone would be worried about keeping cheap computer current beyond 3 years defies my comprehension. Perhaps they need to get a part-time job?

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 02:32 PM
I have been saying this all week and the macmonkeys still do not understand that single cpu woodcrest is not an option as is cost more and offers no advantage over conroe.


Really? the Conroe closest to 3ghz will be the 2.93 Extreme Edition, which if I remember my prices right is MORE expensive than the 3ghz Woodcrest.

THX1139
Jun 1, 2006, 02:45 PM
no way in hell conroe is going in the "mac pro" they are assumeing it will as the mac pro is comming late probably to coinside with the uni version of photoshop.

Using Woodcrest over Conroe in a single (dual core) serves little purpose other than to cost more. The only use for Woodcrest besides server, is in dual chip configuration (Quad), but that would cost a lot of money. We "might" see a Woodcrest Quad, but it's gonna cost a hell of a lot more than the current Quad. And it will run Pro apps in rosetta. Doesn't make sense until ALL pro apps go UB or the Woodcrest price drops. I said it in an earlier post, I don't think you will see an "affordable" Intel Quad until Kentsfield. Better embrace Conroe or wait another 6 months. :D

heisetax
Jun 1, 2006, 02:57 PM
Lol@longofest

Feeling a bit sore spending so much on an obsolete PC architecture? :rolleyes:


Since the PPC is much better than any Intel processors are at much of the math that the Mac needs to do, I would think that the first generation Intel Power Macs will only really be faster doing the math routines that the Intel processors are better at. With PhotoShop not being Universal for another year, Steve will have to be very inventive or as most people would say lying to make the new appear better than the old. To date the Intel processors have proved to have lower clock speeds than the G5. Front side buss speeds are about 1/2 of the G5 front side buss speeds. It will be interesting as to how Steve will claim that the Intel Macs are faster than the G5 Macs. Maybe the single & dual 1.6 & 1.8 GHz models. But I just wonder what it will take to really be faster than the dual 2.7 GHz G5 or the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5?

Maybe theyy'll use Boot Camp to run the Intel Power Mac with Windows version of PhotoShop. Steve's a very good salesman, not a computer engineer, so anything is possible for us to see.

In a normal computer upgrade most people would be upset if the new computer was slower than the old model of computer. That would also include the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5. It will be interesting in how Steve Jobs shows this to be done, not disappointing.

I had planned to purchace the PPC replacement for the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5. AMD forced Intel to change their time table, which in turn is forcing Apple to come out with their Intel PowerMac replacement a year early. So there will probably be no PPC G5 upgrades from Apple.

THX1139
Jun 1, 2006, 02:58 PM
I'm surprised that no one seems to be talking about the pending 64-bit transition that will be coming with the new PowerMac line (Mac Pro line).

This is nothing new. The G5 has been 64bit since the beginning. Some software has been migrating slowly to 64bit, but others, it really doesn't make a difference. Actually, there are parts of the system that runs better or more efficently on 32bit. I mean, do you really need 64bit to run stickys? Anyway, some pro apps have migrated to 64bit or are in process. In the meantime, they run fine on 32 so I don't see the big deal unless you have a memory intensive software like Photoshop or Final Cut Pro etc..

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 03:02 PM
I didn't mean "Bitch people" as u can see i edited my post to correct this , as i ment bitching. While you and AidenShaw may have known this since Jan it seems most of your mac bothers and sister still are subborn to want to understand and just want Woodcrest becuase it's a "SERVER CLASS" cpu reguardless of price or perfomance.



Have you even been reading some of the mindless post that have been up here in the past week. "I want Conore in my iMac" , "I want Woodcrest in all the G5's" not realizing that alot of thses option do not make any sense technically or financially.

Why would you want a hotter chip in an iMac when u can just swap your old one for a merom. some people here are still arguing that Woodcreast will kill conore clock 4 clock and that core 2 is 40% faster then core 1.



For the same reason when the dual 2ghz G5 was 1st introduced in 2003 and Jobs made that stupid claim about it being the fastest PC in the world. Then a few weeks later it got trashed in almost every benchmark by single core high clocked P4's and Athlons FX's.

I said that a 3.0ghz Conore = 3.6ghz G5 now if i had (2) 3.6gz Conroe cores as i may very well have after i OC my E6600 then I will have the equivalent of (2) 4.3ghz G5's , you tell me after this u still want your Quad G5.
, my reason in this is for evey other non multi-threaded app such as games , and a million other Things will benifit more from the high clock spped then extra cores.

Job's is the freakin' Karl Rove of the Tech Industry. Spin Master / ************ Artist Extraordinaire. Don't worry i still hate Gates even more.

You do realize that you all sound like a couple of thirteen year olds arguing whether a Lamborghini is better than a Ferrari...:rolleyes: ;)

nem3015
Jun 1, 2006, 03:06 PM
Sorry if sound stupid but I'm not such a HW guy for processors but someone can explain why AMD chips and motherboards boast buses of up to 2000 MHz ( according to their ads) while Intel is still stuck at 800 or 1000? I know that nominally clocks at AMD are lower than the intel ones but the difference in the bus is huge and compensate. Why can't we have a 3.x Ghz processor dual core with 2000Mhz bus? :D

seenew
Jun 1, 2006, 03:07 PM
Okay, when am I going to get my Core Duo 2 iMac?

nem3015
Jun 1, 2006, 03:08 PM
You do realize that you all sound like a couple of thirteen year olds arguing whether a Lamborghini is better than a Ferrari...:rolleyes: ;)

Actually I prefer a Porsche, and I'm Italian... only thing is Ferrari are more comfortable than Lamborghinis (unless you want to drive laid down about a foot or so from the ground...:p :D

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 03:09 PM
Okay, when am I going to get my Core Duo 2 iMac?

You're not. Sorry. :o

seenew
Jun 1, 2006, 03:20 PM
You're not. Sorry. :o
!:(!

So I should stop waiting and go ahead and buy it?

kuwan
Jun 1, 2006, 03:30 PM
This is nothing new. The G5 has been 64bit since the beginning. Some software has been migrating slowly to 64bit, but others, it really doesn't make a difference. Actually, there are parts of the system that runs better or more efficently on 32bit. I mean, do you really need 64bit to run stickys? Anyway, some pro apps have migrated to 64bit or are in process. In the meantime, they run fine on 32 so I don't see the big deal unless you have a memory intensive software like Photoshop or Final Cut Pro etc..

Traditionally with PPC this is true, but this is not true for x86-64. x86-64 is different from other 64-bit architectures such as PPC-64. Some of the differences:


x86-64 has twice as many registers than IA-32. This means 64-bit applications can be significantly faster than their 32-bit counterparts.
You cannot run x86-64 binaries under a 32-bit OS such as Tiger. This means that when the Mac Pros are introduced running Tiger you will not be able to run 64-bit applications on them (you'll have to wait for Leopard for that).
You must be running a 64-bit OS in order to take advantage of the improvements in x86-64. With PPC-64 you can run a 32-bit OS (Tiger) and still run 64-bit apps and take advantage of the 64-bit improvements of the G5.


Traditionally 64-bit applications are not faster and are sometimes slower than their 32-bit counterparts due to the increased memory bandwidth of 64-bit data types (pointers, long ints, etc.). As described above, this is not true for x86-64 and you can see significant speed improvements (up to 2x) in 64-bit applications over 32-bit apps.

Peace
Jun 1, 2006, 03:32 PM
!:(!

So I should stop waiting and go ahead and buy it?

I'd go ahead and get an iMac now..
Later you can take it to an Apple specialist and have them stick in the Merom if you so desire.

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 03:33 PM
Using Woodcrest over Conroe in a single (dual core) serves little purpose other than to cost more. The only use for Woodcrest besides server, is in dual chip configuration (Quad), but that would cost a lot of money. We "might" see a Woodcrest Quad, but it's gonna cost a hell of a lot more than the current Quad. And it will run Pro apps in rosetta. Doesn't make sense until ALL pro apps go UB or the Woodcrest price drops. I said it in an earlier post, I don't think you will see an "affordable" Intel Quad until Kentsfield. Better embrace Conroe or wait another 6 months. :D

I'd love to see the maximum possible number of cores available in a mac. If that means the price of a quad goes up, than so be it.

And there are plenty of PRO apps already universal, notably the apple pro apps like FCS and Logic. There are plenty of users running those who would like a blazing fast intel tower as soon as they are possible. Makes no sense to wait until photoshop (or whatever) is UB, not all "pro" users need it.

To put it as simply as possible, when apple releases towers they need a configuration that beats the current G5 quad. If they release towers and they are all slower, they would take a public beating over it, it's not going to happen.


Since the PPC is much better than any Intel processors are at much of the math that the Mac needs to do, I would think that the first generation Intel Power Macs will only really be faster doing the math routines that the Intel processors are better at. With PhotoShop not being Universal for another year, Steve will have to be very inventive or as most people would say lying to make the new appear better than the old. To date the Intel processors have proved to have lower clock speeds than the G5. Front side buss speeds are about 1/2 of the G5 front side buss speeds. It will be interesting as to how Steve will claim that the Intel Macs are faster than the G5 Macs. Maybe the single & dual 1.6 & 1.8 GHz models. But I just wonder what it will take to really be faster than the dual 2.7 GHz G5 or the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5?


So far, the new machines have been better than the machines they replace, when running native apps. The lower clock speeds don't really matter when real world performance goes up. The fastest current macs already beat the dual G5's on a number of apps (even the lowly MB beats the dual G5 2.0 tower on many Final Cut Studio benchmarks). Topping the dual towers shouldn't be hard, the real challenge is just the quad, which is about double the speed of any other shipping mac.

I think the way SJ will claim that the new machines are faster is by shipping machines that are faster. Piece of cake with the duals, the big question mark is what will replace the quad?

There was never any possibility of G5 upgrades, once the first intel boxes started shipping.

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 03:44 PM
Using Woodcrest over Conroe in a single (dual core) serves little purpose other than to cost more. The only use for Woodcrest besides server, is in dual chip configuration (Quad), but that would cost a lot of money. We "might" see a Woodcrest Quad, but it's gonna cost a hell of a lot more than the current Quad. And it will run Pro apps in rosetta. Doesn't make sense until ALL pro apps go UB or the Woodcrest price drops. I said it in an earlier post, I don't think you will see an "affordable" Intel Quad until Kentsfield. Better embrace Conroe or wait another 6 months. :DWell then if we get no Intel Quad until next year, you just made the case for the G5 Quad remaining the King of Macs for almost another year. I think Apple must try to sell a Woodcrest Quad if they really expect to keep claiming top speed PC the rest of this year. But if it's also true that Tiger cannot exploit Core 2 Duo 64-bitness, then we have to wait for Leopard anyway. So now I'm thinking along the lines you have posited which means wait for the Dual Kentsfield 8 Core Leopards next Spring '07 after Adobe CS3 UB ships. :)

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 03:47 PM
!:(!

So I should stop waiting and go ahead and buy it?

Yeah, the only thing I can see going into th eiMacs is teh Merom, but that's pure speculation, obviously.

jiggie2g
Jun 1, 2006, 03:59 PM
Really? the Conroe closest to 3ghz will be the 2.93 Extreme Edition, which if I remember my prices right is MORE expensive than the 3ghz Woodcrest.


and that woodcrest must be used in dual configs. w/ecc-ram + a dual socket mainboard which cost around $500-600 itself so u do the math.

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 03:59 PM
and that woodcrest must be used in dual configs. w/ecc-ram + a dual socket mainboard which cost around $500-600 itself so u do the math.


Are you sure about that MUST?

If so, then we may still see the 2.93 conroe Extreme ed. in the low end, but the middle range may have 2x Woodcrest 2.6ghz

Or it may go 2.6conroe 2.93extreme conroe 3ghz woodcrest x2

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 04:02 PM
Yeah, the only thing I can see going into th eiMacs is teh Merom, but that's pure speculation, obviously.


Hate to break it to you iGary, but Merom IS Core 2 Duo!

Merom and Conroe are under the same umbrella of Core 2 Duo, with the highest Conroe alone being a Core 2 Extreme.

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 04:17 PM
OK here's the pricing for Intel's chips:

Conroe:
Core 2 Duo E6600: 2.4ghz $316 (I doubt this will be in our Mac Pros)

Core 2 Duo E6700: 2.67ghz $530 (this could be our mac pro low end)

Core 2 EXTREME X6800: 2.93ghz $999 (This may be in our Mac Pros, but its expensive!)

Woodcrest:

Xeon 5140: 2.33ghz $455 (I doubt this will be in the mac pros either, may be too slow. But it is relatively inexpensive, and two of them means a quad at $900 processor cost. Ignore the Xeon 5148 which is 'low voltage' at a premium price.

Xeon 5150: 2.66ghz $690 (this may make it in, not as inexpensive as the 5140, but faster still.)

Xeon 5160: 3.0ghz $851 at release. (I think this will be in the top top end quad.

We also have to remember that Woodcrest comes out before Conroe by a full month...and then we still have a bit before WWDC, so for all I know prices could drop. I don't know how quickly they move, personally.

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 04:50 PM
OK here's the pricing for Intel's chips:

Conroe:
Core 2 Duo E6600: 2.4ghz $316 (I doubt this will be in our Mac Pros)

Core 2 Duo E6700: 2.67ghz $530 (this could be our mac pro low end)

Core 2 EXTREME X6800: 2.93ghz $999 (This may be in our Mac Pros, but its expensive!)

Woodcrest:

Xeon 5140: 2.33ghz $455 (I doubt this will be in the mac pros either, may be too slow. But it is relatively inexpensive, and two of them means a quad at $900 processor cost. Ignore the Xeon 5148 which is 'low voltage' at a premium price.

Xeon 5150: 2.66ghz $690 (this may make it in, not as inexpensive as the 5140, but faster still.)

Xeon 5160: 3.0ghz $851 at release. (I think this will be in the top top end quad.

We also have to remember that Woodcrest comes out before Conroe by a full month...and then we still have a bit before WWDC, so for all I know prices could drop. I don't know how quickly they move, personally.Good find Silentwave. Also remember Apple does not pay these prices. They pay less according to the deal they make with Intel.

So here's how I see them released at the August 7 SteveNote:

Conroe Core 2 Duo E6600: 2.4ghz $316 Bottom End.

Conroe Core 2 Duo E6700: 2.67ghz $530 Mid level.

NO Conroe Core 2 Duo EXTREME X6800: 2.93ghz $999 is too expensive. Not worth the extra cost to Apple.

Woodcrest Core 2 Duo x 2 Quad (formerly Xeon 5160): 3.0ghz $851 at release. (I think this will be in the top top end quad). Me too. Guessing Apple pays about $1200 per pair.

Can anyone explain if Tiger is useless on an Intel Quad or not? Are there no 32-bit to 64-bit Intel Quad multitasking-multithreading parts in the Intel version of Tiger? I mean what's the point of offering an Intel Quad if it can't run like a PPC Quad can only FASTER? :confused: Aiden Please?

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 05:02 PM
Alden Please?

Actually, I think it's Aiden, not Alden.

THX1139
Jun 1, 2006, 05:07 PM
Well then if we get no Intel Quad until next year, you just made the case for the G5 Quad remaining the King of Macs for almost another year.

Yep, unless Apple decides to raise the price for the Intel Quad, I think they will keep the G5 Quad in the line-up until Kentsfield. I think anyone who purchased a Quad within the past 6 months may find they have a good investment until Spring '07. I might be wrong... Apple may decide to shake things up by releasing the 3ghz Intel Quad (Woodcrest) at WWDC. But what would they have to charge for that beast!? 6-7K?? If they do release a Woodcrest Quad, then what happens when Kentsfield comes out less than 6 months later? Do a redesigned Quad with Kentsfield and drop the price? I think that's a bad idea. Once commited to Woodcrest, I think it's hard to go to Conroe (Kentsfield) next year. Least from a marketing standpoint.

I'm thinking that Apple is going to release Macpro's at WWDC using Conroe. That will be a pacifier for most professionals who don't need the extreme power of a Quad (like me). They will promote Final Cut on the Conroe desktop...and it should be really fast for general video production. Waaay faster than the current G5 dual 2.3. Then when Adobe ships the new version of CS, After Effects and Indesign next year, (and maybe Maya 3d will come out too?) they will announce the new Quad along with revison B of the shipping Macpros (bumping the GHZ along with new motherboards with faster bus) I know, it sounds strange to have one hold-over G5 in the lineup, but they need to continue offering one fast G5 machine until all the rest of the major Pro apps are shipping. It would be cool if they dropped the price of the Quad too!

Once the consumer/prosumer line gets settled by end of year, Apple can go after the high-end pro market. Don't be surprised if they create a marketing campaign around the '07 Intel Quad and the film-fx/3d industry. I know that Steve would love to move Pixar to Mac. I know they could use X-serve, but the 3d software isn't ready. Anyhow, soon as the chips and software are ready, I'll bet he does it.

welborn
Jun 1, 2006, 05:21 PM
So, in the old days, we had the "math coprocessor." Now, we use the graphics card's GPU to speed up various things. I have a new idea.

Apple should release 2 tower lines. Mac Tower and Mac Tower Pro (or whatever).

The Mac Tower would compete with low-end towers: It'd be barebones (with integrated graphics, et cetera), but expandable.

The Mac Tower Pro would be a real workstation-class machine, with multiple processors, lots of open bays and expandability, and -- the important part -- a PPC "Cell" chip like used in the XBox 360.

The OS could shunt off PPC/Altivec instructions there for processing. The Cell's lack of int proc power would be more than compensated for by the Intel chips in the box, which will do most of the work.

The Cell processor could be also be used to do things like:
- Run a virtual-machine XBox 360 environment
- Supercharge 3D rendering and video compression
- Run a virtual-machine "classic" mode

The great part about this is that eventually, XCode could allow Universal software to delegate sections of processing to the Cell, but the benefits would be immediate, as there is plenty of PPC code out there that could take advantage of it.

These machines would basically make the upgrade to a new Pro machine a no-brainer, even for people relying on software that isn't Universal yet. Apple could charge a huge premium for them, too, as long as they were covered on the low end with a cheap tower.

kuwan
Jun 1, 2006, 05:52 PM
Can anyone explain if Tiger is useless on an Intel Quad or not? Are there no 32-bit to 64-bit Intel Quad multitasking-multithreading parts in the Intel version of Tiger? I mean what's the point of offering an Intel Quad if it can't run like a PPC Quad can only FASTER? :confused: Aiden Please?

It's not useless under Tiger it just won't be able to run any 64-bit applications until Leopard is released. The number of processors (1, 2, 4) that the OS can use has nothing to do with 64-bit support.

The new Core 2 CPUs (Merom, Conroe & Woodcrest) can run 32-bit code very well, so they should perform well without 64-bit support. But they can run 64-bit code even faster, up to 2x for some applications. As there are very few 64-bit apps for the Mac right now (only Mathmatica comes to mind) then this isn't a huge problem. But if you do happen to need a 64-bit application then you're probably out of luck until Leopard. This is another reason why Apple may keep some PPC towers around - if you need 64-bit support then your only option will be PPC until Leopard.

Keep in mind that if you want one of the Core 2 Mac Pros that you will likely need to go through yet another transition (32-bit Intel to 64-bit Intel). Drivers will need to be updated for 64-bit support so keep that in mind if you depend on any hardware that requires 3rd party drivers. Also, applications that want to take advantage of the speed improvements in 64-bit mode will also need to be updated.

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 05:53 PM
So what are you guys gonna run Photoshop on? :D :p

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 05:59 PM
That is a good point about apple getting better prices than just that! I suppose a 3ghz quad may make the same price point as the G5. they'd better start it with 1-2 gigs ram though. 512 is a joke for a quad.

I'm wondering though, since we don't know if they'll be using Conroe for imacs for instance (which I dont think they will as merom, not conroe, is the one that is pin compatible with the current board), maybe it would be more cost effective to go all woodcrest, as they'll probably need them for the xserves in multiple speeds? They could save money: buy a bunch of 2.6 and 3ghz Woodcrests...put them both in xserves, and for the Mac Pros have a cheap 2.6ghz quad and a more pricey 3ghz quad.

I'm holding out until this time next year, with my graduation money I may be able to get a Kentsfield-Octo!

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 06:01 PM
So what are you guys gonna run Photoshop on? :D :p

Not that adobe has proven their worth to me lately (ACR does not do well for me, and I find lightroom's best feature is "lights out") but by the time I might need to run PS a lot, I expect we'll have CS3 out as an UB program, so I can run it on my Intel quad or by that point a Xeon-Kentsfield Octo!

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 06:05 PM
Hate to break it to you iGary, but Merom IS Core 2 Duo!

Merom and Conroe are under the same umbrella of Core 2 Duo, with the highest Conroe alone being a Core 2 Extreme.

Whatever happend to simple ship marketing?

Am I the only one that thinks this all sound like some alien BS language?

"Core 2 Duo"

iGary
Jun 1, 2006, 06:05 PM
Not that adobe has proven their worth to me lately (ACR does not do well for me, and I find lightroom's best feature is "lights out") but by the time I might need to run PS a lot, I expect we'll have CS3 out as an UB program, so I can run it on my Intel quad or by that point a Xeon-Kentsfield Octo!

Guess I dont' see the purpose in dropping 4 G's on a machine and then not being able to use it...

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 06:15 PM
Yep, unless Apple decides to raise the price for the Intel Quad, I think they will keep the G5 Quad in the line-up until Kentsfield.


I think that would be suicide for apple. How could they possibly put a positive spin on that? Releasing new towers, none of which are faster than the one that's been out for a year? What's the selling point of them if they're not faster than a machine that was released a year before? It would send a message to the world that the G5's were better than intel after all, and makes it look like they made a big mistake.

Seriously, can you imagine the reaction to benchmarks showing a new dual core conroe running FCS SLOWER than the quad which was released a year earlier? I can see them keeping the quad G5 in the lineup for a while until more apps are universal, but they'd have to have an intel machine that beats it on native apps.

I think they need to release a quad along with dual models, if it requires a price increase, then so be it. If people aren't willing to pay the price, the dual machines will be an alternative for much less money. Is there any argument for NOT releasing a quad machine, other than price?

Guess I dont' see the purpose in dropping 4 G's on a machine and then not being able to use it...

There isn't. Going intel makes sense in two cases. Either the apps you use the most are native, or the apps that aren't native aren't ones that require a ton of speed. Some people will want to wait, but those of us running UB apps want to see towers shipping with the fastest chips available as soon as possible.

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 06:29 PM
Good things will come to those who wait. I'm not 100% sure when TIGERTON will be out... I seem to remember reading Q1 2007 though that may have been Kentsfield. If people wait for Adobe to go universal, they'll be able to pick up Octos! (I knew kentsfield sounded wrong...its the Conroe successor quad, the Woodcrest quad-core successor/MP capable is Tigergton)

Of course those who wait for Dunnington may be even happier.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 06:58 PM
a PPC "Cell" chip like used in the XBox 360.
Xbox uses a PowerPC chip that is simpler than a PPC970, but has three cores.

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 07:41 PM
Good things will come to those who wait. I'm not 100% sure when TIGERTON will be out... I seem to remember reading Q1 2007 though that may have been Kentsfield. If people wait for Adobe to go universal, they'll be able to pick up Octos! (I knew kentsfield sounded wrong...its the Conroe successor quad, the Woodcrest quad-core successor/MP capable is Tigergton)

Of course those who wait for Dunnington may be even happier.So you're saying that Kentsfields may not be mounted in pairs while Tigertons (http://news.techwhack.com/2292/261015-intel-to-launch-tigerton-in-2007/) may? And what is Dunnington? 8 core processors? (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/25/intel_xeon_dunnington/) And if so may they be mounted in pairs? And when do they ship? Are they Core 2 Octo or Core 3 Octo in 2008?

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 08:16 PM
Tigerton replaced Whitefield, but I think it is still going to be followed by Dunnington, which will be 45nm process. I don't know if Tigerton's details have been leaked yet, so we don't know if its 65 or 45nm.
Dunnington may have between 4 and 32 cores according to various rumors. I'd be happy with 8 :)

There are also rumors about Harpertown which may be a woodcrest with the 45nm process, or 8 core MCM with 12MiB L2.

We'll know more as time goes by.
Right now the brands are not known...remember just about what, 2 weeks ago, we didn't know that Conroe/Merom would be called Core 2 Duo. Woodcrest is the Xeon dual-core 5100 series if memory serves.

The good news is we're already predicting 2 generations down the line, once the mac pros are announced we'll have a better idea of where Steve Jobs is putting us as far as processors so we'll know where to watch...and with time will also come a progression in the leaks and announcements as to what will be coming up. We may still see many changes...we're possibly <1yr away from tigertons and they recently brought Tigerton out to replace Whitefield.

Even the Conroes have a bright future. As we said earlier, Kentsfield will be a quad core MCM based on two Conroes, with two 4MiB L2s for a total of 8MiB L2. I do not believe it will be capable of MP. After that will come Yorkfield which is an 8-core MCM on the 45nm process with 12MiB L2.

Of course all of this is tentative and may change...but even if Conroe makes it into the Mac Pros permanently on the low end, it successors Kentsfield and Yorkfield will be blazingly fast at what is likely to be an affordable price point, and may make the chips we have today seem like snails.

Whatever the future holds, it'll be bright and FAST!

cgc
Jun 1, 2006, 08:18 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.
Why? Your quad is still ridiculously fast. Do you think future Macs should not become progresively faster?

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 08:29 PM
Tigerton replaced Whitefield, but I think it is still going to be followed by Dunnington, which will be 45nm process. I don't know if Tigerton's details have been leaked yet, so we don't know if its 65 or 45nm.
Dunnington may have between 4 and 32 cores according to various rumors. I'd be happy with 8 :)

There are also rumors about Harpertown which may be a woodcrest with the 45nm process, or 8 core MCM with 12MiB L2.

We'll know more as time goes by.
Right now the brands are not known...remember just about what, 2 weeks ago, we didn't know that Conroe/Merom would be called Core 2 Duo. Woodcrest is the Xeon dual-core 5100 series if memory serves.

The good news is we're already predicting 2 generations down the line, once the mac pros are announced we'll have a better idea of where Steve Jobs is putting us as far as processors so we'll know where to watch...and with time will also come a progression in the leaks and announcements as to what will be coming up. We may still see many changes...we're possibly <1yr away from tigertons and they recently brought Tigerton out to replace Whitefield.

Whatever the future holds, it'll be bright and FAST!Intel Developer Forum September 26-28, 2006 San Francisco Moscone Center West (http://www.intel.com/idf/us/signup_form.htm). :)

August 7th SteveNote tells us his point of view. Then 7 weeks later Intel tells us theirs. T-Minus 67 Days and counting...:p Don't Go !! And you'll kick yourself for buying that soon to be obsolete quad core Woodcrest system.... eBay it before it even ships!!:D :pHe was kidding See Post #168. :p My bad.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 08:37 PM
As we said earlier, Kentsfield will be a quad core MCM based on two Conroes, with two 4MiB L2s for a total of 8MiB L2. I do not believe it will be capable of MP.
If it can't do multi-processing, it's a paperweight.

Please, gals, stop confusing "having the logic to enable cache coherency between multiple sockets" with "supporting more than one core".

Yonah is an SMP chip, so is Conroe. They just don't have the capability to support the inter-socket communications required to maintain cache coherency among multiple caches in multiple sockets.

If you don't run an SMP operating system on a Yonah, you see a single core.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 08:45 PM
Intel Developer Forum September 26-28, 2006 San Francisco Moscone Center West (http://www.intel.com/idf/us/signup_form.htm). :)

August 7th SteveNote tells us his point of view. Then 7 weeks later Intel tells us theirs. T-Minus 67 Days and counting...
And you'll kick yourself for buying that soon to be obsolete quad core Woodcrest system.... eBay it before it even ships!!

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 09:09 PM
As we said earlier, Kentsfield will be a quad core MCM based on two Conroes, with two 4MiB L2s for a total of 8MiB L2. I do not believe it will be capable of MP.If it can't do multi-processing, it's a paperweight.

Please, gals, stop confusing "having the logic to enable cache coherency between multiple sockets" with "supporting more than one core on the chip".

Yonah is an SMP chip, so is Conroe. They just don't have the capability to support the inter-socket communications required to maintain cache coherency among multiple caches in multiple sockets.

If you don't run an SMP operating system on a Yonah, you see a single core.My question is can Kentsfield (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30504) be used in a double socket motherboard for a total of 8 cores or not? Is that where Tigerton comes in as first generation dual capable 4 core processor? :confused:

novagamer
Jun 1, 2006, 09:16 PM
So what are you guys gonna run Photoshop on? :D :p

XP or Vista, using Parallels or Boot Camp. :)

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 11:18 PM
First Conroe Core 2 Extreme Benchmarks & Roadmap Report (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970201,00.asp).

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 11:31 PM
My question is can Kentsfield (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30504) be used in a double socket motherboard for a total of 8 cores or not? Is that where Tigerton comes in as first generation dual capable 4 core processor? :confused:
Kentsfield will be single socket - it's a Conroe follow-on.

Clovertown is a dual socket - it's a Woodcrest follow-on.

Tigerton is a quad socket - it's a Tulsa follow-on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture

Silentwave
Jun 1, 2006, 11:57 PM
I use the wikipedia articles for reference all the time but judging by what it says, isn't Clovertown to Woodcrest what Kentsfield is to Conroe? simply two of them on the same chip?

Multimedia
Jun 2, 2006, 12:21 AM
4 Core Kentsfield will be single socket - it's a Conroe follow-on. Q1 2007

4 Core Clovertown is a dual socket - it's a Woodcrest follow-on. Q2 2007

8 Core Tigerton is a quad socket - it's a Tulsa follow-on. Q? 2007 or 2008?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_MicroarchitectureI'm smelling a Yorkfield, eight-core MCM, 45 nm, 12 MiB L2, successor to Kentsfield Mac Pro Q1 2008. I think short term a pair of Clovertowns will make the first 8 core Mac Pro Q2 2007. :eek:

BlueRevolution
Jun 2, 2006, 03:34 AM
[see signature]

iGary
Jun 2, 2006, 03:46 AM
XP or Vista, using Parallels or Boot Camp. :)

Windows? Uh, no thanks, that's why I own a Macintosh. :rolleyes:

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 08:08 AM
I use the wikipedia articles for reference all the time but judging by what it says, isn't Clovertown to Woodcrest what Kentsfield is to Conroe? simply two of them on the same chip?
Yes - but both of the follow-ons double the number of cores per socket. This is good.

While in some (many?) cases this is not as good as a bigger chip with double the number of cores - it can be released sooner and cheaper than the larger chip. (Yields fall as the chip grows, so a double-sized chip becomes much more expensive - you get fewer per wafer, and a higher percentage of defects.)

So,
The new form-factor 64-bit dual-core Conroe mini-tower will move to quad core sooner and cheaper with Kentsfield
The maxi-tower quad core (dual dual) Woodcrest will move to an octo-core (dual quad) sooner and cheaper with Clovertown
___________________________________________________________________________________

By the way, did I mention that WWDC will see a new form-factor Mac?

Since Woodcrest will push the price of the maxi-tower up by $500 or more, you won't see a single socket Woodcrest as the low end of the tower line.

Instead, Apple will fill the huge gap between the embarrassingly constrained MiniMacIntel and the frighteningly huge maxi-tower with a new mini-tower with a single (obviously) 64-bit dual-core Conroe chip.

This will have some expansion (room for a second 3.5" hard drive and/or a second optical drive), a PCIe x16 slot for a "real" graphics card (as well as integrated graphics for those who don't need more), 4 DIMM slots for up to 8 GiB of RAM, and a couple of extra PCIe x4 or x8 slots for expansion.

The case will be the same size as a home DVD player or audio component, so it can be stacked with the other components in your home theatre. (And there will be a PCIe x4 ATSC/NTSC TV tuner card and 7.1 sound to make the Apple Home Theatre offering - FrontRow will grow up to a real Media Center.)

A small stand will be included to mount the unit vertically (and the Apple logo will rotate so that it's always correctly oriented).

$949 for the entry (512 MiB, integrated graphics, 160GB, combo) [or maybe $849 with a Core 2 Solo]
$1299 for the mainstream (1 GiB, 256MiB PCIe x16, 400GB, DVD-RW)

I'll start the chants now:

Conroe mini-tower next Tuesday !!

it5five
Jun 2, 2006, 10:54 AM
Wouldnt the lower-end of the Mac Pro's have the Conroe chip as well? So are you just saying that you expect Apple to fill the gap between the low-end Mac Pro and the Mac Mini? Or are you saying that they will only offer the Quad, then the mini tower, then the Mac Mini?

Sorry if I'm way off, I just woke up.

shawnce
Jun 2, 2006, 11:06 AM
$949 for the entry (512 MiB, integrated graphics, 160GB, combo) [or maybe $849 with a Core 2 Solo]
$1299 for the mainstream (1 GiB, 256MiB PCIe x16, 400GB, DVD-RW)

I'll start the chants now:

Conroe mini-tower next Tuesday !!

I generally agree that as a result of Intel's chipsets, socket, and CPU platforms (or maybe better stated... tiers) Apple is much more likely to introduce a "mini-tower" that will live in the 1.5k to 2.5k price range. I doubt it will go much less expensive then that because of collision with the iMac and Mac mini product spaces (I believe the price of the mini-tower + LCD needs to be above the iMac to avoid heavy cannibalization of the iMac product space).

It will use Intels "Conroe" platform as its foundation (topping out possibly with the Conroe XE). IMHO the mini-tower will likely not use integrated graphics but will have an adapter in a 16-lane PCIe slot and sport at least one additional PCIe slot (or maybe an ExpressCard 54 slot instead). It likely will sport a second hard drive bay with support for hardware raid built into the Intel chipset. Also I wouldn't expect it to have more then four DIMM slots (possibly only 2).

If Apple does release a mini-tower then they will (IMHO all but have to) release a true workstation class Mac that will be based on Intel's "Woodcrest" platform (Xeon class). This will live in the 2.5k to 4+k price range an have expansion slots similar to what you see in the existing PowerMac system (possibly with more drive bays). It would likely sport eight DIMM slots.

---

Of course Apple could just release a single form factor that lived in the 2k/1.5k to 4+k range with the lower end using Conroe (single socket system) and possibly one high-end model sporting Woodcrest with dual-sockets (quad core system).... or they may just save the quad core until next year when the quad core version of the Conroe comes out (Kentsfield).

Multimedia
Jun 2, 2006, 11:32 AM
Of course Apple could just release a single form factor that lived in the 2k/1.5k to 4+k range with the lower end using Conroe (single socket system) and possibly one high-end model sporting Woodcrest with dual-sockets (quad core system).... or they may just save the quad core until next year when the quad core version of the Conroe comes out (Kentsfield).This is what I expect. Cranking up a whole new line at this point seems premature to me. Perhaps next year when more core-speed choices emerge. Recent posts by Aiden indicate he thinks the Quad Core Woodcrest will be DOA due to Kentsfield's pending arrival as soon as this winter 2007. It's anybody's guess if we'll see an Intel Quad this year. :confused:

it5five
Jun 2, 2006, 11:52 AM
Of course Apple could just release a single form factor that lived in the 2k/1.5k to 4+k range with the lower end using Conroe (single socket system) and possibly one high-end model sporting Woodcrest with dual-sockets (quad core system).... or they may just save the quad core until next year when the quad core version of the Conroe comes out (Kentsfield).

I also think this is going to be the case. I don't see the point in creating a new line of products that will be priced from the 1.5-2k range, when there are already low end of the Powermacs in that range, and assuming the Mac Pro will be similarly priced, there really isn't a point in making a new line of products in that range.

It'll be interesting to see what they do about the intel quad.

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw
Don't Go !! And you'll kick yourself for buying that soon to be obsolete quad core Woodcrest system.... eBay it before it even ships!!

I take it you believe a Woodcrest Quad is DOA. :p Yeah I can see that too. It's becoming more and more obvious post by post. You think Steve will see that too and forgetaboutit?
Oh no, not DOA at all. I should have surrounded the post with smilies.

My computer budget is a bit above a million a year ($1.3M). I have to forecast 16 to 18 months ahead for the budget.

I *like* being able to see the roadmaps. I know it's completely disorienting for Apple users to know what's going to be available in 3/6/9/12/18/24 months. But for the rest of us it's a way of life to be able to plan purchases.

I'll buy a ton of dual-dual Woodcrests, knowing that I'll get good use from them for quite a few months. I won't buy two tons - the next ton of servers and workstations will be Clovertowns when those come out.
____________________________________________

This is totally unlike the Yonah -> Merom transition. Merom has capabilities (64-bit) that Yonah doesn't. Yonah's future ends when Merom ships - Yonah becomes the poor "Celeron" of the lineup.

Clovertown should be faster than Woodcrest on multi-threaded (or embarrassingly parallel) applications, but the per-thread capability of Clovertown will be almost the same as Woodcrest.

Except for embarrassingly parallel apps, it becomes harder and harder to scale to more cores. Not many apps will be faster on Clovertown - you'll just be able to run more of them.

For multiple apps - two dual-dual Woodcrests should have about the same throughput as one dual-quad Clovertown. The dual-quad is more convenient, but no new capabilities.

On the other hand, with 64-bit operating systems and apps - a Merom is infinitely faster than a Yonah.

In the Intel world, "DOA" isn't a good term. "Expected lifetime" is a better one.

Yonah has the shortest "expected lifetime" of any Intel chip architecture that I can think of off the top of my head. Less than 9 months after intro, it'll be replaced by a chip that's radically better - and one with a much longer lifetime.

Woodcrest, on the other hand, isn't a great leap from Paxville/Dempsey - faster and lower power consumption, but the same features. Woodcrest will live on in parallel to Clovertown. The per thread performance will be similar, so for many applications Woodcrest will be good enough even though Clovertown is available.

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 12:42 PM
Wouldnt the lower-end of the Mac Pro's have the Conroe chip as well? So are you just saying that you expect Apple to fill the gap between the low-end Mac Pro and the Mac Mini? Or are you saying that they will only offer the Quad, then the mini tower, then the Mac Mini?

Sorry if I'm way off, I just woke up.
Conroe takes a completely different motherboard from Woodcrest.

If we assume that the maxi-tower is still a premium, expensive case - it makes a maxi-tower Conroe much more expensive that Conroe systems from everyone else.

It seems more likely that the low end maxi-tower will be a dual-socket motherboard with a single Woodcrest installed.

The second chip could be a BTO option - or even an after-market upgrade like the other Intel vendors. :eek: (I have a small pile of Xeons that I've thrown out after getting faster ones from Newegg.com.)

I'm assuming that Apple will find a way to add more expansion to the maxi-tower. If it could hold 6 disks and 2 optical, then it would make sense to offer a single chip version for people who want to build a file server.

iGary
Jun 2, 2006, 12:46 PM
Intel is also planning a quad-core CPU for enthusiast desktops sometime in Q1 of 2007.

Enthisiast? Is that what pros become in the X86 world?

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 01:59 PM
Enthisiast? Is that what pros become in the X86 world?
Yes. And for most it's a much more accurate and honest term.

Apple's use of the term "pro" is divorced from the usual meaning of the term anyway. Lots of real professionals use MacBooks, and lots of amateurs with excess money use MBPs.

In fact, "Pro" is as much a fashion statement as a feature differentiation on many Apples.

iGary
Jun 2, 2006, 02:04 PM
Yes. And for most it's a much more accurate and honest term.

In the PC world, maybe, but not so much with Apple.

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 02:58 PM
In the PC world, maybe, but not so much with Apple.
It sounds like your ego is on par with your avatar's.... :D

Is there some sort of test or certificate that is issued to prove that one is a "pro" rather than an "amateur" computer user? Is an "enthusiast" somewhere between pro and amateur?

Does the governing board of the Professional Society of Computer Professionals publish statistics on their members' computer preferences? How do they count people who use both?

iGary
Jun 2, 2006, 03:05 PM
It sounds like your ego is on par with your avatar's.... :D

Is there some sort of test or certificate that is issued to prove that one is a "pro" rather than an "amateur" computer user?

No, I just think that a lot of people who get paid for their artistic, photographic, design (etc.) work (i.e. "professinoals") seek out the Mac platform, more so than PC's, so I think the term is fitting.

I dont' suppoes the name Mac Pro is going to dissaude you? :D :p

amac4me
Jun 2, 2006, 03:22 PM
The cash reserve for a new Mac Pro has been placed in safe keeping :cool:

milo
Jun 2, 2006, 03:32 PM
No, I just think that a lot of people who get paid for their artistic, photographic, design (etc.) work (i.e. "professinoals") seek out the Mac platform, more so than PC's, so I think the term is fitting.

I dont' suppoes the name Mac Pro is going to dissaude you? :D :p

I think the term PRO is used far too gratuitiously in terms of software, computers, and other technology. I think it's really meaningless, since there's little correlation between an app or machine being called PRO and the user making money with it.

Lots of people make a living with stuff that doesn't have the "pro" stamp on it, and lots of people use the "pro" stuff for personal use. I think some people just get some sort of self esteem boost by insisting they're a pro.

it5five
Jun 2, 2006, 05:59 PM
It seems more likely that the low end maxi-tower will be a dual-socket motherboard with a single Woodcrest installed.

The second chip could be a BTO option - or even an after-market upgrade like the other Intel vendors. :eek: (I have a small pile of Xeons that I've thrown out after getting faster ones from Newegg.com.)



What I've gathered through the rest of this thread is that a single woodcrest would have no advantage over a conroe, right? And isn't the woodcrest much more expensive? So if there is no advantage over the conroe, there wouldn't be a point in putting the woodcrest in. I suppose maybe if Apple did a BTO option for a second chip then it would make sense, but I don't see why one of the higher performing Conroe's wouldn't go into the lower-end Mac Pros.

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 06:05 PM
What I've gathered through the rest of this thread is that a single woodcrest would have no advantage over a conroe, right? And isn't the woodcrest much more expensive? So if there is no advantage over the conroe, there wouldn't be a point in putting the woodcrest in. I suppose maybe if Apple did a BTO option for a second chip then it would make sense, but I don't see why one of the higher performing Conroe's wouldn't go into the lower-end Mac Pros.
You omitted my last sentence from the clip - which explains the apparent contradiction.

"I'm assuming that Apple will find a way to add more expansion to the maxi-tower. If it could hold 6 disks and 2 optical, then it would make sense to offer a single chip version for people who want to build a file server."

People would pay for the expansion of the larger box - not for the Woodcrest per se.

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 06:08 PM
Actually, two Woodies!

The nice FedEx man delivered two Woodcrest servers to me right after lunch.

Xeon 5150 (2.66 GHz, 4 MiB L2, dual socket, dual core)
4GiB of RAM.

Just finishing the Win2k3 installations now. Oh boy!

AidenShaw
Jun 2, 2006, 06:13 PM
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006May/bch20060530036452.htm

Woodcrest cint2000: 3057/3063
Woodcrest cfp2000: 2775/2778

Opteron 256 cint2000: 1836/2057
Opteron 256 cfp2000: 2260/2497

it5five
Jun 2, 2006, 06:26 PM
You omitted my last sentence from the clip - which explains the apparent contradiction.

"I'm assuming that Apple will find a way to add more expansion to the maxi-tower. If it could hold 6 disks and 2 optical, then it would make sense to offer a single chip version for people who want to build a file server."

People would pay for the expansion of the larger box - not for the Woodcrest per se.

Ah, I'm sorry, I did miss that. Clears it up. :)

novagamer
Jun 2, 2006, 06:32 PM
Windows? Uh, no thanks, that's why I own a Macintosh. :rolleyes:

I completely agree with you, but there's no near term OSX solution to running dreamweaver and photoshop on the intel Macs at any kind of decent speed. I've little choice, unfortunately.

I would love a G5 powermac, but I can't justify spending nearly $2,000 at minimum for something that is going to be entirely eclipsed in the near future, excepting those 2 programs, which I don't rely on (yet) for a source of income.

Although the upcoming release of the Mac pro certainly doesn't make current computers any less usable, a lot of people seem to think so. If it works for you now (not *you* in particular, but others), then it will work after new technology comes out.

My reasoning behind wanting to buy the top end, hopefully woodcrest based Xeon Mac Pro in 2 months is that it will be as fast as I need it to be for the next few years. I've never owned a PC that could stay competitive for very long, especially since I used to be overly concerned with video gaming, which is not really something I'm very involved with any longer.

I want to learn more about Apple's pro apps through first hand experience, and possibly take up photography as a hobby in addition to music which is already a hobby of mine (and which logic pro would come in very handy for). All of those applications will run much faster on an intel Mac than they will on a powerpc Mac, so for me, since Photoshop is not really an *essential* tool in my daily life, I can deal with running windows to use it for 6 months if I have to, then enjoy the speed increases once it goes dual binary.

In a situation such as yours, where you (if I've read right around the forums) do photography for a living, then unquestionably I would stay with a G5 mac, especially until any yet-unknown bugs are worked out with the first revision hardware. Like I said earlier, it's not as if your current setup will become instantly worthless.

People need to learn that they should upgrade when it will seriously benefit their day to day activities, and more largely, their productivity. Things like a 30" display for heavy users of aperture, and a laptop for a newspaper columnist are pieces of technology that can literally save hours every week, which ultimately are priceless. Too often people shell out thousands of dollars so they can claim to have the higher GHz, or the higher framerate in a game, only to be begrudgingly leapfrogged within 6 months, to which they'll express their disdain on many tech forums. It's that mentality, I think, which needs to be curbed.

Sorry for the long post, just wanted to try to cover most angles.:)

Silentwave
Jun 2, 2006, 07:29 PM
What I've gathered through the rest of this thread is that a single woodcrest would have no advantage over a conroe, right? And isn't the woodcrest much more expensive? So if there is no advantage over the conroe, there wouldn't be a point in putting the woodcrest in. I suppose maybe if Apple did a BTO option for a second chip then it would make sense, but I don't see why one of the higher performing Conroe's wouldn't go into the lower-end Mac Pros.

The highEST performing Conroe will be the Extreme Edition but that will be MORE expensive than the top woodcrest. The costs of a different logic board or whatever (conroe/woodcrest not pin compatible) might offset the price advantage of the 2.66 conroe vs. the 2.66 woodcrest.

Highland
Jun 2, 2006, 08:39 PM
I'd like to see a mid-range Mac desktop - the Mac Mini and iMac are not really expandable (can't add a TV tuner card which is a common consumer use), and the Mac Pros won't be consumer/prosumer grade machines - they will be workstations.
Errr... I have a DTT USB tuner that works on anything I plug it into. PCI really isn't required for consumers these days. Even high end audio works with FireWire. Plus, the low end PowerMac has always been cheap enough if you need PCI.

AidenShaw
Jun 3, 2006, 12:27 AM
Errr... I have a DTT USB tuner that works on anything I plug it into.
Sure, if you don't mind a wart hanging off your system.

Considering Apple's obsession with form, I'm surprised that so many people accept the idea of a mess of cables and dongles and boxes needed to provide base functionality that could be implemented inside the box.

jiggie2g
Jun 3, 2006, 03:33 AM
The highEST performing Conroe will be the Extreme Edition but that will be MORE expensive than the top woodcrest. The costs of a different logic board or whatever (conroe/woodcrest not pin compatible) might offset the price advantage of the 2.66 conroe vs. the 2.66 woodcrest.


Uhhhh let's see

Xeon 5160(woodcrest)@3.ghz $850 x 2 = $1700
Dual CPU Motherboard $400-600 usd so let's say $400
now lets add that up $1700 + $400 = $2100 just for the CPU and Mobo

Core 2 XE(Conroe)@2.93ghz = $999 + $200(975x) for mobo = $1199

So you were saying?

Multimedia
Jun 3, 2006, 04:17 AM
Uhhhh let's see

Xeon 5160(woodcrest)@3.ghz $850 x 2 = $1700
Dual CPU Motherboard $400-600 usd so let's say $400
now lets add that up $1700 + $400 = $2100 just for the CPU and Mobo

Core 2 XE(Conroe)@2.93ghz = $999 + $200(975x) for mobo = $1199

So you were saying?I'm thinking Apple's price may be $1200 + $300 = $1500 so if they don't charge an arm and a leg for the rest, Intel Quad could still come in at a little over $3k like the G5 did. :)

jiggie2g
Jun 3, 2006, 04:31 AM
I'm thinking Apple's price may be $1200 + $300 = $1500 so if they don't charge an arm and a leg for the rest, Intel Quad could still come in at a little over $3k like the G5 did. :)


I very much doubt Intel will sell those CPU to Apple at such a low price I say $1400-1500 is more realistic just for the CPU's , Intel may do the mobo for $300 i can see that happening. this will still be a machine costing well over $3000.
when you include the cost of all the other items (that fancy aluminum case alone should run about $200-250) then software , and of course Apple's Profit Margin.

I have said this a million time over if Apple is going for the Quad it wil do so on the high end only as the lower models will not be very profitable for apple, unless they want to make Dell like ultra slim margins.

Well it will be fun guys come Aug but I am till going to kick all ur arses with my Conore E6700 OC'd@3.6ghz + DFI or ASUS ATI Radeon 3200 Express(RD600 Chipset). The T-Minus 60 days and counting for BattleStar Vistica's Launch..lol

zoran
Jun 3, 2006, 04:13 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

Well, im glad you would do that... ive started so many threads regarding this rapid uncontrolable move to Intel cpus that my keyboard is on fire. Actually most will not admit that im right and i have great examples of people beeing very displeased with this rapid switch (G5 iMac to intel iMac, MBpros 15&17" etc.)
I feel very sorry for you longofest, i wish there are not more beeing so diepleased but i hope there are so that more complaints can be made and Steve understands some things.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

zap2
Jun 3, 2006, 04:27 PM
Well, im glad you would do that... ive started so many threads regarding this rapid uncontrolable move to Intel cpus that my keyboard is on fire. Actually most will not admit that im right and i have great examples of people beeing very displeased with this rapid switch (G5 iMac to intel iMac, MBpros 15&17" etc.)
I feel very sorry for you longofest, i wish there are not more beeing so diepleased but i hope there are so that more complaints can be made and Steve understands some things.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


Do you have something against intel? i mean it pretty clear The can smoke anything IBM or FreeScale was going give our laptops. I mean maybe if IBM has tried a G5 mobile we could still be with them, but alas no dice. I'm beting Woodcrest will be able to stand its own against G5, even if the gain is not that much, it won't hurt anything, and the low end desktops and all laptop finaly got a chip that is not 7 years old!

Intel won.. its sad but IBM and FreeScale were not givening us anything on the low end Macs, and that were the $$ is.:(

zoran
Jun 3, 2006, 04:30 PM
Do you have something against intel? i mean it pretty clear The can smoke anything IBM or FreeScale was going give our laptops. I mean maybe if IBM has tried a G5 mobile we could still be with them, but alas no dice. I'm beting Woodcrest will be able to stand its own against G5, even if the gain is not that much, it won't hurt anything, and the low end desktops and all laptop finaly got a chip that is not 7 years old!

Intel won.. its sad but IBM and FreeScale were not givening us anything on the low end Macs, and that were the $$ is.:(


Nope nothing against intel, im glad they are here, i have other problems, better read my threads to understand. people really fought me regarding my ideas on how the intel switch was made, i think wrongfully! If u want to continue on this subject come to my threads not in here.

jiggie2g
Jun 3, 2006, 04:51 PM
Incase anyone was curious as to why the the Conroe Core 2 XE is clocked at 2.93ghz it's because of the FSB is Quad pumped at 266mhz and not 333mhz like WoodCrest/Xenon.


Core 2 XE X6800 is 266.5 x 4 for 1066FSB plus 11 x CPU Muliplier = 2.93ghz

Xenon 5160 is 333.5 x 4 for 1333FSB plus 11 x CPU Muliplier = 3.0ghz

The next(4th QT) Core 2 XE will be the X6900 12 x CPU Muliplier = 3.2ghz

Then the Monster(1st QT '07) Core 2 XE X8000 1333FSB plus 10 x CPU Muliplier = 3.3ghz

THX1139
Jun 3, 2006, 05:26 PM
Then the Monster(1st QT '07) Core 2 XE X8000 1333FSB plus 10 x CPU Muliplier = 3.3ghz

The first chips out will be nice, but they are a hold-over until '07. Once the second generation comes out with faster buses things are going to get real interesting.

I think the best times to buy into the Intel pro-line is Rev.B for the MBP and Coreduo 2 at WWDC. For the desktops, it's going to be around MWSF for Rev.B (Kentsfield). That is unless they go with Woodcrest, but I still think it's going to be too expensive. Interesting, over on the Apple Insider forums, the general concensus seems to be that the new desktops, other than the entry level, are all going to be Woodcrest. I don't know how going with Woodcrest can be made affordable (unless Apple goes with generic plastic boxes), nor do I think it's a good idea when Kentsfield is less than 6 months from August.

So, the question is, do we buy the first Desktops in August or wait 5-6 months to see what shakes out after MacWorldSF?

shawnce
Jun 3, 2006, 05:31 PM
Do you have something against intel? No I think he just fell off his medication. :D

AidenShaw
Jun 3, 2006, 05:49 PM
So, the question is, do we buy the first Desktops in August or wait 5-6 months to see what shakes out after MacWorldSF?
You'll never buy again...if you decide to wait because something better is coming in 6 months.

You all are going to reconsider your buying habits. The old, secret Apple "lack of roadmap" doesn't apply anymore.

Now, you can see two or more years into the future - and buy with better knowledge of how soon your purchase will be slightly surpassed, or clearly surpassed, or made suddenly obsolete.

For the most part (excluding Merom suddenly clubbing Yonah to death) the change will be gradual.

Conroe is a big step, but just a step, from the Pentium D. It's faster, uses less power, but more or less does exactly the same thing.

Kentsfield (the "quad core Conroe") will be more or less the same as a dual-dual Woodcrest - but months later, and probably short in some areas (Woodcrest mobos will probably support more memory).
_________________________________________

No more "I'll buy a computer to last 5 years" - things are changing faster than that (unless, of course, in 5 years you'll do exactly what you do now with exactly the same programs).

Macs will become just as disposable as PCs. You'll buy them for what you plan to use them for, and as soon as something comes along that does what you need faster and better - Mac into the dumpster.

My advice would be to watch the Intel train go by until all your major apps are fat binary - then buy. (Unless at that time the situation is like today - a whole new line of chips coming out in the next month or two.)

timmillwood
Jun 3, 2006, 06:03 PM
I am hoping for a new powermac in Jan 2007 i would like to spend £1500 - edu discount

I hope for at least 4 cores, 1Gb ram and 256mb graphics card.

My current powermac dual 2ghz, 2.5gb ram, 256mb graphics for Photoshop and dreamweaver web development, so i dont need big speed like you video editors, but i want it!!

i would also like some cool new inivations, like Blue-ray and HD-DVD drives, faster hard drives, faster cables than SATA, and loads of other cool stuff only apple could imagine

THX1139
Jun 3, 2006, 07:08 PM
You'll never buy again...if you decide to wait because something better is coming in 6 months.

You all are going to reconsider your buying habits. The old, secret Apple "lack of roadmap" doesn't apply anymore.

(edit)



I pretty much agree with everything you said in your well written post. I don't think "waiting" to purchase a computer is ever a good idea if you are holding off for incremental upgrades on an established platform. However, if you are on a budget that allows for one purchase every 3-4 years, AND if there is a milestone change happening within 6 months, don't you think waiting can be worth it? For example, isn't buying Yonah (now) a bad idea with Merom looming on the horizon? That is a major milestone that's going to kill the Yonah (as you said in your post). The next milestone is the Macpro desktops (vs. buying the currently shipping G5). Beyond that, the next major milestone is probably Kentsfield and I'm contemplating if that is too far in the future to wait. Maybe it is, if I were to trust the first shipping versions of the desktops. However, waiting for Rev.B and Kentsfield may be worth it, so one can avoid being a hardware beta-tester for Apple this fall. I think that once the Intel transition is complete, and the hardware is on second revisions (as well as software released), then one can reasonably forecast hardware purchases, even though the chip turn-over is probably going to be quicker from now on. Anyway, I don't think the 'ol adage of "If you wait to buy, you'll wait forever..." applies in this transition year.

So, in that regard, when I say "waiting," I guess I mean that I'm waiting for the transition to complete and most of the bugs in the line-up worked out. That probably means '07 at the earliest unless I want to spend a lot of time on eBay. :D

Silentwave
Jun 3, 2006, 07:15 PM
so wait is there some law of physics that says that Woodcrest must be used in pairs?

shawnce
Jun 3, 2006, 07:30 PM
so wait is there some law of physics that says that Woodcrest must be used in pairs?

No not really but Woodcrest requires a certain chipset that is more expensive then the chipset that supports Conroe.

jiggie2g
Jun 3, 2006, 08:46 PM
so wait is there some law of physics that says that Woodcrest must be used in pairs?


No , However is make no sense to use a woodcrest unless u are going to use both sockets. The motherboard alone cost 2-3X what a Conroe Mobo would cost, plus the use of EEC ram which cost 25-30% more then regular DDR2.

Aside from cost there is also the simple fact that Woodcrest offers no performance advantage over Conroe(said this 100x times) in single socket setups.

take a look:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813182076

AidenShaw
Jun 4, 2006, 11:16 AM
No , However is make no sense to use a woodcrest unless u are going to use both sockets. The motherboard alone cost 2-3X what a Conroe Mobo would cost, plus the use of EEC ram which cost 25-30% more then regular DDR2.
The Woodcrest Mobo will support up to 64 GiB of RAM, Conroe is likely to top out at 8 GiB or less.

If you need lots of RAM for an application that can't use more than two threads, a Woodcrest with a single chip would make sense.

Consider if Apple uses the new Conroe exclusively in a small Mini-Tower, and Woodcrest exclusively in a PMG5-sized maxi-tower. (And if the new Mac Pro tower has disk/optical/IO expandability in line with its extraordinary size...)

In that case, a single chip Woodcrest would save money for people who need expandability but not added CPU power.

In the Wintel world, most Xeon systems are available with a single chip - with field-upgrade to dual chip. (The upgrade kit contains the second CPU, heat sink, and usually a VRM card.) This is a nice option for people who aren't sure if their application needs a second chip - buy one and add the second later if you need more horsepower.

...I guess that makes 3 reasons...:D

retroneo
Jun 4, 2006, 11:24 AM
The nice FedEx man delivered two Woodcrest servers to me right after lunch.

Xeon 5150 (2.66 GHz, 4 MiB L2, dual socket, dual core)
4GiB of RAM.

Just finishing the Win2k3 installations now. Oh boy!

Could you install a cracked version of Mac OS X 10.4.6 on them and give us some benchmarks?

AidenShaw
Jun 4, 2006, 12:29 PM
Could you install a cracked version of Mac OS X 10.4.6 on them and give us some benchmarks?
No.

That would mean stealing software from Apple.

I'm not a thief, I don't use warez.

jiggie2g
Jun 4, 2006, 12:45 PM
No.

That would mean stealing software from Apple.

I'm not a thief, I don't use warez.


Well i'm not a thief but i use warez , if they are given to me. I won't download them myself. I would never pay for Windows or M$ Office. I did pay for Jaguar , Panther and Tiger on my old iMac G4.

Aiden if someone is going to use more then 8GB(which would cost nearly as much as a mac anyhow) then I don't think they would have any problem buying a Quad woodcrest Mac.

The Powermac/MacPro is a Highend Desktop and Stev'O has suckerd you all into believeing it's a workstation(it can be modified into one) , if thats the case then any Alienware gaming Rig / Faclon PC / Dell XPS or even my OC'd Athlon X2 setup is a worstation class machine being that they all perfrom very close to eachother.

as far as your Pizza box "Dream On" never going to happen Apple would have addresed this years ago if they cared about the High-Mid end market they feel people will either buy the top iMac or Low end mac Pro.

Don't be suprised either if the MacPro ends up all Conroe and Steve uses this as as stop gap until Kentsfield arrives for MWSF. He did it with Yonah.

shawnce
Jun 4, 2006, 02:24 PM
Well i'm not a thief but i use warez , if they are given to me.
:confused:

AidenShaw
Jun 4, 2006, 02:34 PM
Well i'm not a thief but i use warez , if they are given to me. I won't download them myself. I would never pay for Windows or M$ Office.
No court of law would rule that using a CD instead of BitTorrent changes it from stealing to something legal.

It's nice, though, that you only steal from Microsoft and not Apple.

THX1139
Jun 4, 2006, 02:50 PM
Well i'm not a thief but i use warez , if they are given to me. I won't download them myself.

Okay... so you're saying that you don't steal, but you use stolen stuff? And that make you what? Innocent bystander?


Shifting gears. Did anyone happen to notice that Boxx has announced a new workstation that uses Woodcrest? Yep, they are already to go, looks like they are just waiting for the official release. Kind of wish Apple would do that. I think that would create just as much buzz as a media event. They could put it right on the front page "Coming Soon" etc. Surely they know what the machines are going to be by now? They probably have a bunch of them sitting there waiting for chips. Least I'm sure they have test models!

Boxx even has a picture and a page to order the new system. If you click on configure, it takes you to a survey form.

What kinda surprised me was that Boxx is only charging $3000 for entry level price....and that is for a Quad.

I hope Apple does as well or better. I take back what I posted earlier that I didn't think Apple would release Woodcrest in anything but a top-end system. As long as Apple doesn't get too greedy on their margin, Woodcrest is doable. I would like to see an entry level tower with one Woodcrest for around 2K, with option for me to add/change to another processor later.

Here's the specs for the Boxx:

Base Configuration $2,995

Microsoft Windows/SATA hard drives

Two Dual-Core Intel® Xeon™ 5130 Series processors

2GB FBDIMM DDR2 667 REG ECC (2 x 1GB FBDIMMs)

nVIDIA® Quadro® FX 560 Pro Video Edition

80 GB 7,200 rpm Serial ATA 8MB Cache Drive

16x Dual Layer DVD+/-RW Writer

Windows™ XP Professional Edition SP2

Black 104 Key Keyboard

Logitech® MX310 Corded Optical Mouse

AidenShaw
Jun 4, 2006, 03:02 PM
Base Configuration $2,995

Two Dual-Core Intel® Xeon™ 5130 Series processors

Intel Woodcrest Pricing

Processor Clock Speed/FSB Price

Xeon 5160 3.0GHz / 1333MHz $851
Xeon 5150 2.66GHz / 1333MHz $690
Xeon 5148 2.33GHz / 1333MHz $519
Xeon 5140 2.33GHz / 1333MHz $455
Xeon 5130 2.0GHz / 1333MHz $316
Xeon 5120 1.86GHz / 1066MHz $256
Xeon 5110 1.60GHz / 1066MHz $209

THX1139
Jun 4, 2006, 03:27 PM
Intel Woodcrest Pricing

Processor Clock Speed/FSB Price

Xeon 5160 3.0GHz / 1333MHz $851
Xeon 5150 2.66GHz / 1333MHz $690
Xeon 5148 2.33GHz / 1333MHz $519
Xeon 5140 2.33GHz / 1333MHz $455
Xeon 5130 2.0GHz / 1333MHz $316
Xeon 5120 1.86GHz / 1066MHz $256
Xeon 5110 1.60GHz / 1066MHz $209

Okay... but we don't know what Apple is paying for them. I sorta doubt Apple will use the 5160 in the Quad. Probably the 5150, just to show the speed increase over the Quad G5. Not sure how that translates to price, guess it depends on what design they use for the box and what goes inside. Maybe all they need is one tower model and have the chips and graphics cards as BTO. Base configuration for around $1500, customize to your needs.

it5five
Jun 4, 2006, 03:35 PM
As nice as that would be, I think it's more likely they will stick to the 3 different choices that they offer now.

Plus, how could you buy that at the Apple store? Would they only offer the base configuration?

Also, I think it's highly unlikely, since they don't do that sort of set-up with any of their other computers.

xUKHCx
Jun 4, 2006, 04:17 PM
so we could have the ill-fated 3ghz

at a premium though. I personally think they will go for the 2.66 ghz or 2.33ghz. Reasoning well looking at the rest of the transition purely athe the ghz rating (yeah yeah i know it is not all about ghz but there is quite an obvious trend. When comparing the top end last of the ppc chips to the bottom intel ones in their respective machines. The only drop is in the iMac which fell .27 ghz, the rest all show an increase, even if the Powermac lost that .27 ghz the closet chip would be the 2.33 ghz, and if they followed the upwards increase it would put them up at 2.66ghz or even the 3 ghz, but due to costing i reckon the sweet spot will be 2.66 ghz, giving a big increase in speed (maybe not that big for the quad) while keeping the pricing relatively similar.

Mac mini 1.42 ghz -> 1.5 ghz
iMac 2.1 ghz -> 1.83 ghz
iBook 1.4 ghz -> 1.83 ghz
Powerbook 1.67 ghz - 1.83 ghz

Powermac 2.5 ghz -> 2.33 or 2.66 ghz

jiggie2g
Jun 4, 2006, 04:33 PM
Intel Woodcrest Pricing

Processor Clock Speed/FSB Price

Xeon 5160 3.0GHz / 1333MHz $851
Xeon 5150 2.66GHz / 1333MHz $690
Xeon 5148 2.33GHz / 1333MHz $519
Xeon 5140 2.33GHz / 1333MHz $455
Xeon 5130 2.0GHz / 1333MHz $316
Xeon 5120 1.86GHz / 1066MHz $256
Xeon 5110 1.60GHz / 1066MHz $209

The Xenon 5140 is all you need to beat the G5 , even though it's clocked lower the better core and L2 more then make up 4 this.

Xenon 5140@2.33ghz + 20% = 2796mhz G5

I call this "The 20% Rule" this will be used to measure Core 2 against G5 and AMD64 since all clock speeds are similar.

and to answer THX1139 about my use of warez, 1st of all i mostly use freeware stuff like ,

AVG Anti-Virus
Thunderbird
Firefox
DVD Shrink
DVD Decrypter
ZoneAlarm
Picasa 2
Google Earth
Yahoo Widget Engine
TrillianBasic 3
WeatherBug
Adobe PDF

you can run a perfectly stable PC with just freeware. the only warez i have are the really expensive stuff from major corps that can take the hit...I guess the Suits will have to wait an extra week for that Ferrari. smaller companies that make good sofware like AnyDVD i will gladly support and pay for thier stuff. however I refuse to pay for XP Pro or Office. especially when both are passed around freely like AOL discs

jiggie2g
Jun 4, 2006, 05:16 PM
Here is is comparison list that I put together to show why Conore's in a MacPro wouldn't be a bad Idea.

Let's list the Desktop CPU's

Perfomance equvilancy is based on "The 20% Rule" , these are rough estimates , however perfomance should be even better based on most of the benchmarks i've seen.

C2E X6800 (2.93 GHz, FSB1066, 4 MB L2) : $999 = FX/G5@3.51
C2D E6700 (2.66 GHz, FSB1066, 4 MB L2) : $530 = FX/G5@3.20ghz
C2D E6600 (2.40 GHz, FSB1066, 4 MB L2) : $316 = FX 62/G5@2.88ghz
C2D E6400 (2.13 GHz, FSB1066, 2 MB L2) : $224 = FX 60/G5@2.56
C2D E6300 (1.86 GHz, FSB1066, 2 MB L2) : $186 = X2 4400+/G4@2.23ghz

I am very excited and cain't wait to get my E6700 for it's good clock speed and 10x mulitplier....3.8ghz here i come.:D

This is interesting:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101926

4Ghz on Air:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101796&highlight=conroe

Sorry for the Double Post

THX1139
Jun 4, 2006, 06:00 PM
(edit)...the only warez i have are the really expensive stuff from major corps that can take the hit...I guess the Suits will have to wait an extra week for that Ferrari.(edit)

Oh, okay... well, since you put it that way, that makes perfect sense. I mean why buy from companies that can afford to give it to you! :confused: Now if you could just figure out how to get a free computer to run it all on. ;)

THX1139
Jun 4, 2006, 06:13 PM
The Xenon 5140 is all you need to beat the G5 , even though it's clocked lower the better core and L2 more then make up 4 this.

Xenon 5140@2.33ghz + 20% = 2796mhz G5

Yeah, and that would make the Quad around $4000 give or take. Then they could use Conroe for the entry and mid-range for Rev.A. Then change over when Kentsfield ships.

Boxx is using the 5130 and they are selling just at $3000 for the base model. I think Apple has a bigger mark-up and still uses some expensive components, so not sure going with the 5120 will be affordable in their price point. I'd think they will want to show a bit of a speed bump over the current G5's, but they can't raise the price from the G5 Quad without justifying it. The only way, would be to throw that 3.0 in there hoping people will pay the increased cost. Would people choke on the price of a Quad 3.0 at $5K+ ?

jiggie2g
Jun 4, 2006, 07:12 PM
Yeah, and that would make the Quad around $4000 give or take. Then they could use Conroe for the entry and mid-range for Rev.A. Then change over when Kentsfield ships.

Boxx is using the 5130 and they are selling just at $3000 for the base model. I think Apple has a bigger mark-up and still uses some expensive components, so not sure going with the 5120 will be affordable in their price point. I'd think they will want to show a bit of a speed bump over the current G5's, but they can't raise the price from the G5 Quad without justifying it. The only way, would be to throw that 3.0 in there hoping people will pay the increased cost. Would people choke on the price of a Quad 3.0 at $5K+ ?


Yeah Boxx has a rep for selling expensive but hardcore rigs , I told people all along that the Quad will not make it in the MacPro , they can charge whatever they hell they want with Xserves because Dreamworks , ILM ,WETA and Pixar will pay those prices but no one else will especially when Photoshop is not even ready. Though I think Dell will have Apple beat in the Very high end server market with 8 and 16 way AMD rigs.

It's going to be hard for Apple to compete in the High end when everyone else will have the same spec set-up for $500 less. With the Macbook/Pro , iMac , Mac Mini they cater to certain markets and offer something different , however with the demise of the G5 Apple will be pressured to offer something innovative besides fancy software in the high end.

It won't be fun for Apple when tech savvy people can build a killer Conroe rig at 40% of the price and still have better specs.

I think this is why Steve'O is more focused on Content distribution and Consumer electronics. When Apple signed with Intel they automactically gave up the power they had on the hardware end of Mac's. So don't be surprised come christmas time you walk into BestBuy and see that $1199 Hp Pavillion match specs with a mid end MacPro. Except that Hp comes with a free LCD monitor and printer....lol:p

Lastly here is what I expect :

Aug '06/WWDC
MacPro (all Conroe)..shipping asap
Core 2 Extreme X6800(2.93ghz)
Core 2 Duo E6700(2.67ghz)
Core 2 Duo E6600(2.40ghz)

Jan '07/MWSF
MacPro(Kentsfield/Conore)..Shipping Feb '07
Core 2 Extreme@2.93-3.2ghz Quadcore
Core 2 Extreme X6900(3.2ghz)
Core 2 Duo E6800(2.93ghz)

They will take a slight step backwards and "Leap Ahead":p . just like they did with thier notebooks(they use core 1 at the expense of 64bit support) in exchange for better tech. just in time for Adobe and M$ to announce Photoshop CS 3 and Office 2007 at MWSF.

AidenShaw
Jun 4, 2006, 08:54 PM
The only warez i have are the really expensive stuff from major corps that can take the hit...I guess the Suits will have to wait an extra week for that Ferrari.
Pay for the cheap stuff, steal the expensive stuff - whatever rationalization floats your boat. It's still theft.

Interesting that one of your "freeware" programs exists mainly to steal copyrighted content from DVDs, though.

I think that I'll bookmark your posts to reference the next time some inflated ego posts a line like "only PeeCee users steal software"....

AidenShaw
Jun 4, 2006, 08:58 PM
They will take a slight step backwards and "Leap Ahead":p . just like they did with thier notebooks(they use core 1 at the expense of 64bit support) in exchange for better tech.
Umm, OSX is 32-bit, just like the G4 chips in the iBook and PowerBook.

Only the G5 iMac has gone backwards, although since OSX only gives lip service to 64-bit support and since the G5 iMac only supported 2 GiB of RAM it really doesn't matter....

kuwan
Jun 4, 2006, 11:56 PM
Aiden if someone is going to use more then 8GB(which would cost nearly as much as a mac anyhow) then I don't think they would have any problem buying a Quad woodcrest Mac.

8 GB of RAM doesn't cost very much:

$680 for 8 1GB DIMMs
$818 for 4 2GB DIMMs

kuwan
Jun 5, 2006, 12:14 AM
Umm, OSX is 32-bit, just like the G4 chips in the iBook and PowerBook.

Only the G5 iMac has gone backwards, although since OSX only gives lip service to 64-bit support and since the G5 iMac only supported 2 GiB of RAM it really doesn't matter....

OS X is more of a 32-bit/64-bit hybrid. The Kernel is basically 32-bit for its own address space but supports large 64-bit address spaces for applications. It also supports running both 32-bit and 64-bit applications at the same time - this is due to the much better design of the PPC platform. PPC was originally designed as a 64-bit platform with a 32-bit subset. So running on a 32-bit/64-bit hybrid operating system such as Tiger was anticipated when PPC was designed.

Contrast this with the mess that x86 is - originally designed as a 16-bit platform extended to 32-bits with IA-32 and now extended again to 64-bits by AMD. In order to take advantage of the new 64-bit improvements you need a 64-bit kernel; in other words, when running in 32-bit mode on a 32-bit operating system, like Tiger, you cannot run 64-bit applications. So don't expect to be running anything 64-bit on the new Mac Pro hardware. For that you'll probably have to wait for Leopard next year.

Count this as a big reason why Apple will probably continue to sell some PPC PowerMacs after the Mac Pros are introduced. If anyone absolutely needs to run a 64-bit program, such as Mathmatica, then they'll need a PPC Mac.

AidenShaw
Jun 5, 2006, 08:23 AM
It also supports running both 32-bit and 64-bit applications at the same time - this is due to the much better design of the PPC platform.
Windows x64 also runs 32-bit and 64-bit applications simultaneously - not sure what you mean about "much better design" in this context.

In order to take advantage of the new 64-bit improvements you need a 64-bit kernel; in other words, when running in 32-bit mode on a 32-bit operating system, like Tiger, you cannot run 64-bit applications.
Actually, 32-bit Windows systems support up to 64 GiB of RAM and can run 64-bit applications....

If anyone absolutely needs to run a 64-bit program, such as Mathmatica, then they'll need a PPC Mac.
Or Windows x64.

BenRoethig
Jun 5, 2006, 10:01 AM
Here is is comparison list that I put together to show why Conore's in a MacPro wouldn't be a bad Idea.

Let's list the Desktop CPU's

Perfomance equvilancy is based on "The 20% Rule" , these are rough estimates , however perfomance should be even better based on most of the benchmarks i've seen.

C2E X6800 (2.93 GHz, FSB1066, 4 MB L2) : $999 = FX/G5@3.51
C2D E6700 (2.66 GHz, FSB1066, 4 MB L2) : $530 = FX/G5@3.20ghz
C2D E6600 (2.40 GHz, FSB1066, 4 MB L2) : $316 = FX 62/G5@2.88ghz
C2D E6400 (2.13 GHz, FSB1066, 2 MB L2) : $224 = FX 60/G5@2.56
C2D E6300 (1.86 GHz, FSB1066, 2 MB L2) : $186 = X2 4400+/G4@2.23ghz

I am very excited and cain't wait to get my E6700 for it's good clock speed and 10x mulitplier....3.8ghz here i come.:D

This is interesting:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101926

4Ghz on Air:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101796&highlight=conroe

Sorry for the Double Post

The chip is only half the equation. To use Conroe, you also have to use the P965 or 975x chipset. They don't have the pro features that the 5000x does. It'll probably be a safer bet in the long run for all the Pro Macs to have the same motherboard and give the consumer their choice of woodcrest configurations.

AidenShaw
Jun 5, 2006, 10:14 AM
The chip is only half the equation. To use Conroe, you also have to use the P965 or 975x chipset. They don't have the pro features that the 5000x does.
Oh no, now the overused "pro" label is being used for chipsets as well.... :rolleyes:

Curse those "amateur" chipsets!


It'll probably be a safer bet in the long run for all the Pro Macs to have the same motherboard and give the consumer their choice of woodcrest configurations.
Right - but I still expect to see the new form factor 64-bit dual-core mini-tower "Mac Amateur".

it5five
Jun 5, 2006, 10:29 AM
I still think its likely that they keep the same lineup they have now. If someone really needs a tower, the low end powermac is only 2k, and I have a hard time seeing how Apple will competively price this mini tower you think they will release. Of course I would love to be wrong, but I'm not holding my breath for the mini tower.

kuwan
Jun 5, 2006, 11:39 AM
Windows x64 also runs 32-bit and 64-bit applications simultaneously - not sure what you mean about "much better design" in this context.

Yes, but only 64-bit Windows can run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. An x86-64 chip can run in two modes, from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T)

Long Mode
The intended primary mode of operation of the architecture; it is a combination of the processor's native 64-bit mode and a 32-bit/16-bit compatibility mode. It is used by 64-bit operating systems. Under a 64-bit operating system, 64-bit, 32-bit and 16-bit (or 80286) protected mode applications may be supported...
Legacy Mode
The mode used by 16-bit (protected mode or real mode) and 32-bit operating systems. In this mode, the processor acts just like an x86 processor, and only 16-bit or 32-bit code can be executed. 64-bit programs will not run. (emphasis mine)

The much better design of the PPC architecture that I refer to is its ability to run in both 32-bit & 64-bit mode under either a 32-bit or 64-bit operating system with no penalties. Since PPC was designed as a 64-bit architecture its 32-bit subset was designed to run in the same environment.

With x86-64 you can only run 32-bit/64-bit applications at the same time when you are running on a 64-bit operating system.

Actually, 32-bit Windows systems support up to 64 GiB of RAM and can run 64-bit applications....

32-bit Windows may be able to support up to 64 GB of RAM, but it cannot run 64-bit applications. Each process would be limited to its own 32-bit (4 GB) address space. See above.

Or Windows x64.

The discussion is about 64-bit support on the Mac platform. Neither I nor Apple is interested in what 64-bit Windows can or cannot do. If they feel that they have customers that require 64-bit support then they'll keep selling them machines that can support 64-bit applications. Until Leopard ships this means PPC G5 PowerMacs.

AidenShaw
Jun 5, 2006, 11:44 AM
32-bit Windows may be able to support up to 64 GB of RAM, but it cannot run 64-bit applications. Each process would be limited to its own 32-bit (4 GB) address space. See above.
An application running in a 32-bit Windows OS can change the mode bit, and run with 64-bit addressing.

At least one application that I know of does that - it runs 64-bit tasks from a 32-bit version of Windows.

jiggie2g
Jun 5, 2006, 12:37 PM
Oh no, now the overused "pro" label is being used for chipsets as well.... :rolleyes:

Curse those "amateur" chipsets!

Thank you Aiden i was just about to jump all over this before i read your comment , it seems the Mac cool aid is becoming more potent every day , now people have to label all things related to the PowerMac/MacPro with "Pro". As for being amatuer : e-sata / 10x USB 2.0 ports / 2x Firewire / 2xPCIe 16 , 2x gigabit ethernet / 8ch HD audio/ 6x sata 3gb/s / DDR2 800 support. I don't think these are amateur features , no mac will ever see all this stuff , but my P965 mobo will. Apple will give you a cheap bare bones bargin bin Mobo as always. Will give you cheap DDR2 533(with bad latency) , a low end $90 250Gb HD with only 8MB cache. let's also not forget the infamous $80 video card Apple always includes with thier $2000+ "Pro" Desktops.

This is like the same crap people kept saying about the G5 being "server class" and Conroe being "Desktop Class" this is why i was calling people snobs , because this is pure "BS" . Steve has got too many mac users believing this crap , I will put my "amateur" DFI Lanparty UT NF4 Ultra-D Mobo against any thing apple can come up with and still end up with better "Pro" features. you guys that need 64 Gigs for ram are barking up the wrong tree , buy an Xserve.


Right - but I still expect to see the new form factor 64-bit dual-core mini-tower "Mac Amateur".

I don't think Apple cares about that segment of the market , Apple only cares about thier margins and if they came out with a $1499 PC it would probabally be crippled to death like the single socket G5's. They figure the iMac has this covered.

kuwan
Jun 5, 2006, 01:14 PM
An application running in a 32-bit Windows OS can change the mode bit, and run with 64-bit addressing.

At least one application that I know of does that - it runs 64-bit tasks from a 32-bit version of Windows.

Name the application, I doubt it does what you think it does. Running in 64-bit mode on x86-64 is much more than 64-bit addressing, there are additional registers that must be addressed by compiler and OS support and the registers are 64-bits wide instead of 32-bits. These features require OS and compiler support.

Counter
Jun 5, 2006, 03:07 PM
And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

These responses make me laugh everytime something new comes out.

milo
Jun 5, 2006, 03:35 PM
Interesting that one of your "freeware" programs exists mainly to steal copyrighted content from DVDs, though.

It's only stealing if you rip DVDs you don't own. If you're ripping DVDs you bought, that's covered by fair use.

I still think its likely that they keep the same lineup they have now. If someone really needs a tower, the low end powermac is only 2k, and I have a hard time seeing how Apple will competively price this mini tower you think they will release. Of course I would love to be wrong, but I'm not holding my breath for the mini tower.

I assume you mean you don't see *why* apple would do a mini tower? There's no question about *how* they can do it since it certainly would be possible. If they don't, it's because they choose not to, not because they can't.

Apple could easily release a mini tower with iMac specs plus a couple slots for less than what an iMac costs. Of course, that would make the mini look expensive...

I don't think Apple cares about that segment of the market , Apple only cares about thier margins and if they came out with a $1499 PC it would probabally be crippled to death like the single socket G5's. They figure the iMac has this covered.

I think apple wants to push people to more expensive models, but I also think they could easily make a decent tower for $1499 and still have the same or better margins than they do on any other model. I think they could even go cheaper than that.

ktlx
Jun 5, 2006, 04:06 PM
This is like the same crap people kept saying about the G5 being "server class" and Conroe being "Desktop Class" this is why i was calling people snobs , because this is pure "BS".

Although I agree this "Pro" stuff and shocked responses that Apple would dare consider Conroe for the PowerMac G5 replacement are silly and ignorant, the PowerMac G5s do have some "server class" features you won't find in retail Conroe motherboards.

The dual socket PowerMac G5s all have eight memory slots. The PCIe PowerMac G5s can take either ECC or non-ECC memory. You won't find dual sockets, eight memory slots or an ECC/non-ECC option on any retail Conroe motherboards. You can't have two sockets, period. I'm fairly certain the Intel MCH chips for Conroe aren't capable of having more than four memory slots work reliably. Although the chipsets can support ECC memory, I've never seen a motherboard manufacturer support the option.

For me, I couldn't care less if I lost those features. I think using an E6700 with four memory slots supporting up to DDR2-800 would make a great replacement PowerMac for almost everyone. I agree there would need to be a dual dual based on Woodcrest but I just can't see that being attractive for anyone but the most demanding video professionals and amateurs with too much money on their hands.

AidenShaw
Jun 5, 2006, 04:10 PM
Name the application, I doubt it does what you think it does. Running in 64-bit mode on x86-64 is much more than 64-bit addressing, there are additional registers that must be addressed by compiler and OS support and the registers are 64-bits wide instead of 32-bits. These features require OS and compiler support.
VMware Workstation/VMware Server.

Running on a 32-bit OS, it can run 64-bit virtual machines.
_____________________________

The point is only academic, however. Since a true 64-bit version of Windows exists, it's very easy to run 32-bit and 64-bit apps side by side. Just run Windows x64 Edition !

It's only if you you're stuck with a 32-bit operating system that the question of a having a crippled 64-bit application mode becomes interesting.

ktlx
Jun 5, 2006, 04:10 PM
It's only stealing if you rip DVDs you don't own. If you're ripping DVDs you bought, that's covered by fair use.

Not if you live in the US and the DVDs use CSS. The DMCA has not been found to be unconstitutional, so bypassing the CSS is still against the law.

I've never heard the term "fair use" apply outside of the US but I'm sure Europe probably has some equivalent legal concept. I have no idea if bypassing CSS for DVDs you own is legal there or not.

ktlx
Jun 5, 2006, 04:12 PM
The point is only academic, however. Since a true 64-bit version of Windows exists, it's very easy to run 32-bit and 64-bit apps side by side. Just run Windows x64 Edition !

Only if you have the drivers. Not all hardware manufacturers have jumped on the Windows 64-bit bandwagon.

AidenShaw
Jun 5, 2006, 04:22 PM
Only if you have the drivers. Not all hardware manufacturers have jumped on the Windows 64-bit bandwagon.
It's really only a problem if you build your own x64 PC or if you have a bunch of old cards that you want to put in a new x64 PC.

Most of the people who need 64-bit apps are buying new machines to run them, so getting supported drivers is no problem.

By the time Vista has been out for a year - you'll find the opposite problem. All the new stuff will have 64-bit drivers, and sometimes you'll have problems finding a 32-bit driver.

ktlx
Jun 5, 2006, 04:40 PM
It's really only a problem if you build your own x64 PC or if you have a bunch of old cards that you want to put in a new x64 PC.

Or if you have printers. Or if you have scanners. Or if you have lots of things. Have you even tried to build a home set up using Windows XP 64-bit with peripherals? I have. Once you get past chipset and video card drivers, you start running into lots of problems really fast. Not even all of the Tier 1 peripheral hardware players support Windows XP 64-bit yet for stuff you can buy in the stores today. Epson's about the only company I've seen who isn't a video card or chipset company who has broad support for the OS.

AidenShaw
Jun 5, 2006, 04:58 PM
Epson's about the only company I've seen who isn't a video card or chipset company who has broad support for the OS.
Well, I guess I didn't notice - since I have Epson printers and scanners :cool: .

macgeek2005
Jun 5, 2006, 05:44 PM
How much do you think the G4 tower in my Signature will be worth after the Mac Pro's are released? Keep in mind it comes with a 15" ADC moniter.

tortoise
Jun 5, 2006, 07:10 PM
Contrast this with the mess that x86 is - originally designed as a 16-bit platform extended to 32-bits with IA-32 and now extended again to 64-bits by AMD.


AMD64 is not an "extension" of x86, it is more of a new CPU architecture cleverly designed to very easily support code for the x86 ISA. With AMD64, they basically cleaned up and fixed all the significant legacy problems of x86 while retaining all its advantages (and yes, x86 does have some advantages). The biggest improvements are the move to 16 general purpose 64-bit registers and a redesigned floating point implementation. PPC has little to offer over AMD64, and given the choice I actually prefer AMD64 to PPC as an architecture.

kuwan
Jun 6, 2006, 12:00 AM
VMware Workstation/VMware Server.

Running on a 32-bit OS, it can run 64-bit virtual machines.


This is nothing like you described previously. The 64-bit virtual machines that VMware creates run an entire 64-bit guest operating system. This is completely different from 32-bit Windows running 64-bit applications which cannot be done without emulation or virtualization. What this is is 64-bit Windows running 64-bit applications inside of a virtual environment.

The point is only academic, however. Since a true 64-bit version of Windows exists, it's very easy to run 32-bit and 64-bit apps side by side. Just run Windows x64 Edition !

It's only if you you're stuck with a 32-bit operating system that the question of a having a crippled 64-bit application mode becomes interesting.

And as others have pointed out, 64-bit Windows suffers from a lack of 64-bit drivers. This will be the same situation that Mac users will face with a 64-bit version of Mac OS X.

Wouldn't it be nice if the operating system could remain 32-bit but still support 64-bit applications? Then there'd be no driver issues to worry about. Oh wait, we already have this with the PPC version of Tiger. It'd be nice if they could do the same thing with x86-64, but they can't. And since they can't it means that we'll have to go through yet another transition where everyone will need to wait for updated drivers for all of their peripherals. Plus they'll have to wait for new 64-bit versions of applications to come out (assuming developers want to take advantage of the speed improvements in x86-64).

kuwan
Jun 6, 2006, 12:30 AM
AMD64 is not an "extension" of x86, it is more of a new CPU architecture cleverly designed to very easily support code for the x86 ISA. With AMD64, they basically cleaned up and fixed all the significant legacy problems of x86 while retaining all its advantages (and yes, x86 does have some advantages). The biggest improvements are the move to 16 general purpose 64-bit registers and a redesigned floating point implementation. PPC has little to offer over AMD64, and given the choice I actually prefer AMD64 to PPC as an architecture.

Extension, new architecture, who cares what vocabulary you use? IMO, given that its main purpose was to provide backwards compatibility with the IA-32 architecture then that sounds much more like an extension than something completely new.

A redesigned floating point implementation has nothing to do with the platform's architecture. Implementation is different from architecture.

What is it exactly that you prefer in AMD64 over PPC as an architecture? Is it AMD64's 16 general purpose registers to PPC's 32? Is it the inability of AMD64 to run 64-bit applications from a 32-bit operating system? Is it the inability of AMD64 to use 64-bit registers in a 32-bit application? Is it AMD64's 48-bit address space (2^48 bytes) to PPC's full 64-bit address space (2^64 bytes)? Is it AMD64's incomplete (and still incompletely evolving) SSE1/2/3 to PPC's AltiVec? I could keep going.

What is it exactly in AMD64's architecture that is so compelling? Or do you prefer an AMD64 implementation over the PPC implementation? ;)

AidenShaw
Jun 6, 2006, 07:19 AM
What this is is 64-bit Windows running 64-bit applications inside of a virtual environment.
What this is is 32-bit Windows running a 64-bit application. The 64-bit application happens to be a virtual machine monitor, but it's a 64-bit task running on a 32-bit OS.

The CPU has to switch between 32-bit mode and 64-bit mode everytime it runs the VMM.

Note that Windows 36-bit addressing support (the 64 GiB RAM limit) internally uses larger memory addresses, so the VMM could use as much memory as it needs. This is helped by the fact that a VMM uses low-level OS APIs to allocate memory at the page level - the VMM doesn't "malloc" a few Gibis when it needs RAM for the VM.


And as others have pointed out, 64-bit Windows suffers from a lack of 64-bit drivers. This will be the same situation that Mac users will face with a 64-bit version of Mac OS X.
Short term problem during the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. With Vista, Microsoft aims to make the 64-bit version the logical one to run if you have 64-bit capable hardware.

Just as today you should put off a MacIntel purchase until your necessary apps are fat binary, you should (today) stick with 32-bit unless you have 64-bit drivers for your necessary hardware.


Wouldn't it be nice if the operating system could remain 32-bit but still support 64-bit applications?
No, that's a limited kludge. A stepping stone to true 64-bit support - especially in the lame OSX implementation where most of the libraries and frameworks can't be used from a 64-bit app.

IMO, Apple should have waited for Core 2 and made OSX for Intel 64-bit only. Selling Yonah was a mistake that will hurt for years.

Core 2-only would have eliminated the driver issue. Since there would be no 32-bit OSx64 systems, if there's a driver - it's 64-bit.

One fewer transition for software developers - the Intel transition would also the true 64-bit transition.


It'd be nice if they could do the same thing [64-bit apps on 32-bit OS] with x64, but they can't.
The "mode bit" that controls 64-bit operation is a per-process attribute - whenever the scheduler gives a CPU to a thread the thread's mode bit setting is used.

Tiger's lame 64-bit implementation could easily be run on x64 processors - the VMware application proves that.


And since they can't it means that we'll have to go through yet another transition where everyone will need to wait for updated drivers for all of their peripherals. Plus they'll have to wait for new 64-bit versions of applications to come out (assuming developers want to take advantage of the speed improvements in x64).
These problems will be real, but the cause isn't that an x64 processor can't switch modes on a per thread basis.

The problem was that someone in Cupertino was too impatient to wait a few more months for the x64 transition - and instead jumped on Yonah. In the long term, this will be seen as the biggest mistake of the Intel transition.

AidenShaw
Jun 6, 2006, 07:42 AM
A redesigned floating point implementation has nothing to do with the platform's architecture. Implementation is different from architecture.
Interesting that you emphasize this, since some of your arguments ignore the distinction between implementation and architecture.

Is it the inability of AMD64 to run 64-bit applications from a 32-bit operating system?
Not true, as I've shown with the VMware example. The CPU can easily swap between modes on the fly.

Microsoft chose to port their existing 64-bit Windows operating system to the x64 architecture and provide true 64-bit support. There was no need to go to additional effort and create a kludge that supported a small set of limited 64-bit apps from a 32-bit base.

If the tables were turned (that is, if Apple had true 64-bit and Windows supported 64-bit apps only at a DOS prompt) there'd be no end of comments about how stupid Microsoft is... ;)


Is it the inability of AMD64 to use 64-bit registers in a 32-bit application?
Not true, 32-bit apps can use 64-bit and 128-bit registers.

Of course, you meant "64-bit general purpose integer registers" - the 64-bit FP and 128-bit SSE registers are available to both 32-bit and 64-bit programs. (And note that SSE3 supports some long integer operations even in 32-bit mode.)

I won't mention the inability of AltiVec to do double-precision floating point....

Is it AMD64's 48-bit address space (2^48 bytes) to PPC's full 64-bit address space (2^64 bytes)?
Perhaps you should check your facts here - the PPC970 has 42-bit physical addressing, not 64-bit. (Implementation vs. architecture mistake.)

No Apple PPC970 has supported more than 34-bits (16 GiB), just like the "amateur" 975 chipset.

There is *no* point in having more physical address lines in an implementation than it will reasonably need during its lifetime. 42-bits is 4096 GiB of RAM, 48-bit is 262,144 GiB - more than enough headroom for the lifetime of these implementations.

Similarly, there's little point in supporting virtual addressing wider than is likely to be necessary - as long as the architecture requires full 64-bit address checking. This lets later implementations increase the VA width without any changes in applications.

brianus
Jun 6, 2006, 10:07 AM
Perhaps you should check your facts here - the PPC970 has 42-bit addressing, not 64-bit. (Implementation vs. architecture mistake.)

No Apple PPC970 has supported more than 34-bits (16 GiB), just like the "amateur" 975 chipset.

There is *no* point in having more physical address lines in an implementation than it will reasonably need during its lifetime. 42-bits is 4096 GiB of RAM, 48-bit is 262,144 GiB - more than enough headroom for the lifetime of these implementations.

Not to get wildly off topic, but could someone please explain to me how it's possible for a 32-bit operating system to use addresses with such weird sizes (34, 36, 42, 48 bits)?? It was always my understanding that this was an impossibility, hence the need for 64-bit processors. If not, what's the need for 64 bit?

AidenShaw
Jun 6, 2006, 10:20 AM
Not to get wildly off topic, but could someone please explain to me how it's possible for a 32-bit operating system to use addresses with such weird sizes (34, 36, 42, 48 bits)?? It was always my understanding that this was an impossibility, hence the need for 64-bit processors. If not, what's the need for 64 bit?
Applications need 64-bit virtual addressing more than the OS needs it.

The memory hardware in an x86 system divides memory into pages of 4096 bytes. This is the smallest unit of memory that can be allocated, assigned protections, etc. at the hardware and low-level system memory management.

Since 4096 bytes is 12-bits, that means that a 20-bit number can count all the pages in a 32-bit physical memory.

Much of the memory management and I/O code in the operating system refers to pages by their page number - therefore a 32-bit register can easily hold the page numbers needed to support more than 4 GiB of physical RAM.

That's how a 32-bit operating system like 32-bit Windows can support 64 GiB of total system RAM (which is 36-bit physical address).

An application, however, uses a 32-bit virtual address (since it needs to find the bytes inside one of the 4 KiB pages). A 32-bit application is capped at seeing 4 GiB of RAM at once.

If the operating system needs to see the bytes within the page - it either runs in the context of the process, or it puts the page number into a kind of pointer to make it temporarily accessible as a virtual address.

(This is simplified at bit, but basically correct.)

milo
Jun 6, 2006, 02:31 PM
Not if you live in the US and the DVDs use CSS. The DMCA has not been found to be unconstitutional, so bypassing the CSS is still against the law.

I've never heard the term "fair use" apply outside of the US but I'm sure Europe probably has some equivalent legal concept. I have no idea if bypassing CSS for DVDs you own is legal there or not.

It hasn't been found unconstitutional yet. It hasn't gone to the supreme court so far, has it? If it ever does (which is probably unlikely, I can't imagine trying to press charges against a guy ripping DVD he owns), I think the supreme court would throw it out in a heartbeat.

If bypassing the CSS really is illegal, than how are commercial DVD ripping apps being sold in the USA?

kuwan
Jun 6, 2006, 07:27 PM
Alright, I'll respond to your two posts and then that's it for me since I've grown tired of providing facts only to be countered with your vague, incorrect and unverifiable assertions. Unless you provide something substantive in response I'll be gone.

What this is is 32-bit Windows running a 64-bit application. The 64-bit application happens to be a virtual machine monitor, but it's a 64-bit task running on a 32-bit OS.

The CPU has to switch between 32-bit mode and 64-bit mode everytime it runs the VMM.


The 64-bit application here is the 64-bit guest operating system. I'll reiterate again, running the processor in 64-bit mode requires a 64-bit OS - the VMM or hypervisor puts the processor into 64-bit mode and then an operating system must manage the processor while in this mode. If you wanted to run other "applications" in this way then each application would have to do everything an operating system does - manage context switching, memory management, scheduling, etc. Each "application" would basically be a small operating system incurring extra overhead. This would be a huge kludge, so much so that it is impractical as each 64-bit "application" would be a mini operating system and dramatically increase overhead on the machine.

At any rate the 32-bit operating system is not running 64-bit applications, the 32-bit OS is running an application that virtualizes a 64-bit environment that then runs a 64-bit OS and subsequently 64-bit applications (whew, what a mouthful).

Reference Operating modes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd64#Operating_modes) for more details.

For additional proof and reading, please take a look at AMD's AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual Volume2: System Programming (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24593.pdf) (PDF). Describing Long Mode (64-bit mode) in 2.1.1, page 29:

To use 64-bit mode, a 64-bit operating system and tool chain are required.

For information on how to put the processor into Long Mode read 14.6.1 Activating Long Mode, page 427:

Switching the processor to long mode requires several steps. In general, the sequence involves disabling paging (CR0.PG=0), enabling physical-address extensions (CR4.PAE=1), loading CR3, enabling long mode (EFER.LME=1), and finally enabling paging (CR0.PG=1).

Specifically, software must follow this sequence to activate long
mode:
1. If starting from page-enabled protected mode, disable paging by clearing CR0.PG to 0. This requires that the MOV CR0 instruction used to disable paging be located in an identity-mapped page (virtual address equals physical address).
2. In any order:
- Enable physical-address extensions by setting CR4.PAE to 1. Long mode requires the use of physical-address extensions (PAE) in order to support physical-address sizes greater than 32 bits. Physical-address extensions must be enabled before enabling paging.
- Load CR3 with the physical base-address of the level-4 page-map-table (PML4). See “Long-Mode Page Translation” on page 160 for details on creating the 4- level page translation tables required by long mode.
- Enable long mode by setting EFER.LME to 1.

3. Enable paging by setting CR0.PG to 1. This causes the processor to set the EFER.LMA bit to 1. The instruction following the MOV CR0 that enables paging must be a branch, and both the MOV CR0 and the following branch instruction must be located in an identity-mapped page.



Leaving Long Mode (found in 14.7, page 429) is a similarly long and complex process.

Note that this is nothing like the "mode bit" that you claim can be set on a per-process basis. The CPU can run in either 32-bit Legacy mode or 64-bit Long mode, it cannot run and/or use both modes at the same time. In order for VMware to work as it does it needs to be constantly switching the processor in and out of 64-bit mode - switch to 64-bit mode and let the 64-bit virtualized OS run, then switch back to 32-bit mode and let 32-bit Windows do what it needs to do (and back and forth). Also note that this is much more complex and resource intensive than a simple context switch from one thread/process to another.

Short term problem during the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. With Vista, Microsoft aims to make the 64-bit version the logical one to run if you have 64-bit capable hardware.

Just as today you should put off a MacIntel purchase until your necessary apps are fat binary, you should (today) stick with 32-bit unless you have 64-bit drivers for your necessary hardware.

Short term and yet today, over a year after 64-bit Windows was released, there is limited support for 64-bit drivers and Vista is still more than 6 months away (at best). All the while Tiger has been out for over a year featuring 64-bit support and not requiring any new drivers or any other painful transition for users.

You do now seem to concur with my original reason for bringing up 64-bit support - that in addition to the current PPC to Intel transition there will be yet another 32-bit to 64-bit transition for users to go through.

Wouldn't it be nice if the operating system could remain 32-bit but still support 64-bit applications?
No, that's a limited kludge. A stepping stone to true 64-bit support - especially in the lame OSX implementation where most of the libraries and frameworks can't be used from a 64-bit app.

It's not a limited kludge, it's a great feature that takes advantage of one of the great design advantages of the PPC platform. I agree though that Apple has limited its usefulness by not providing 64-bit versions for most of the libraries on Mac OS X. Had they provided a complete set of 64-bit libraries then this would be "true 64-bit support" in every sense. There's no reason that the OS kernel needs to be 64-bit, it certainly doesn't need to access that much RAM itself, unless of course the processor needs a 64-bit OS in order to run 64-bit applications.

IMO, Apple should have waited for Core 2 and made OSX for Intel 64-bit only. Selling Yonah was a mistake that will hurt for years.

I agree with this 100%. It now means yet another transition for both developers and users. That would have meant waiting for Leopard in addition to Core 2. And since Leopard probably won't be coming until next year I guess Apple decided they couldn't let their laptop line stagnate for that long. We all get to pay the price for years to come.

The "mode bit" that controls 64-bit operation is a per-process attribute - whenever the scheduler gives a CPU to a thread the thread's mode bit setting is used.

There is no such "mode bit". As described above the processor can either run in 32-bit Legacy mode or it can run in 64-bit Long mode. If you want to mix modes as VMware does then you need to constantly switch the processor between Legacy mode and Long mode. Note that this is a serializing operation that requires the processor to completely flush whatever it is doing before it can make the mode switch - a time-consuming and performance-degrading operation. This is not a per-process attribute, the CPU can run in either one mode or the other.

Tiger's lame 64-bit implementation could easily be run on x64 processors - the VMware application proves that.

Not without providing either 1) a separate 64-bit kernel to run 64-bit applications - in essence you'd have two operating systems running (32-bit Tiger and a separate 64-bit kernel for 64-bit apps) or 2) requiring each 64-bit application to be its own mini OS. Neither option is practical and requires too much overhead.

The bottom line is that with x86-64 you need a 64-bit operating system in order to run 64-bit applications. And this means yet another transition for developers and users.

kuwan
Jun 6, 2006, 07:28 PM
Is it the inability of AMD64 to run 64-bit applications from a 32-bit operating system?
Not true, as I've shown with the VMware example. The CPU can easily swap between modes on the fly.

See my post above for why your VMware example is faulty and does not work for any practical purposes (other than providing a virtual environment for a 64-bit operating system). Switching between modes is a serializing operation and wouldn't be at all practical for normal use. And it still doesn't change the fact that while in 64-bit mode the processor must be managed by a 64-bit OS.

Not true, 32-bit apps can use 64-bit and 128-bit registers.

Of course, you meant "64-bit general purpose integer registers" - the 64-bit FP and 128-bit SSE registers are available to both 32-bit and 64-bit programs. (And note that SSE3 supports some long integer operations even in 32-bit mode.)

Good that you edited your original post to correct yourself. ;) What I was talking about is the ability of a 32-bit PPC application to use 64-bit general purpose registers. This can be done by using the -mpowerpc64 flag in GCC (or the "Use 64-bit Integer Math" setting in Xcode). This allows math-intensive 32-bit applications that do not require a 64-bit address space to benefit from using native 64-bit integers. You cannot do this on x86-64. In order to use 64-bit general purpose registers you must be a 64-bit application running in 64-bit mode.

I won't mention the inability of AltiVec to do double-precision floating point....

You just did, but that's hardly a great advantage of SSE2. Since the G5 has two double-precision floating point units capable of performing 2 double-precision floating point operations (FLOPs) per cycle then what's the point of having double-precision SIMD support? Given the choice of 2 FLOPs per cycle in scalar or 2 FLOPs per cycle in SIMD I think the scalar route is much more useful as it doesn't require you to mess with the difficulties of SIMD programming.

Plus, given the fact that the double-precision SSE implementations can only complete 1 SSE operation ever other cycle (1 operation every 2 cycles) then that gives you an effective throughput of only 1 double-precision FLOP per cycle. In this case the G5 clearly wins. Altivec, in addition to supporting many more integer operations than SSE1/2/3/4, has a throughput of one instruction per cycle - double that of current SSE implementations (Search for "vector throughput of one instruction per two cycles on vector execution units." (http://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/ve/sse.html) on the linked page).

Oops, now I'm getting into implementation details. So while from an architecture standpoint I suppose it is nice that SSE has had double-precision support it has been handicapped by poor implementations. Luckily Core 2 features a much improved vector engine finally capable of delivering one instruction per cycle throughput. I'd still prefer having 2 double-precision floating point units over double-precision SIMD support.

Perhaps you should check your facts here - the PPC970 has 42-bit physical addressing, not 64-bit. (Implementation vs. architecture mistake.)

I was talking about virtual address space, not physical. Though I will admit to being mistaken about the AMD64's virtual address space, it is 64-bits as defined by the architecture so never mind on this one. Current implementations, however, have a 48-bit virtual address space and a 40-bit (1 terabyte) physical address space. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd64#Architecture_Features)

The PPC970 on the other hand actually supports a 65-bit (yes, 65-bit) virtual address space and a 42-bit physical address space (4 terabytes). See the PPC 970FX User Manual (http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/AE818B5D1DBB02EC87256DDE00007821) (PDF) section 5.1, page 134 for details.

But those are implementation details.

My point still stands, the PPC64 architecture is a much cleaner and better designed architecture than AMD64/x86-64/EM64T (whatever you want to call it). Just think of the poor Intel engineers that wanted to throw legacy x86 away and design the IA-64 (Itanium) architecture (not that I think IA-64 is a particularly good architecture, I don't much like it). It'd be nice if we could throw away all the legacy garbage and baggage that is x86, but its massive installed base and required backwards compatibility has (probably above anything else) ensured the success of AMD64 and that x86 will be with us for many, many years to come. :(

AidenShaw
Jun 6, 2006, 07:56 PM
[i]Switching the processor to long mode requires several steps. In general, the sequence involves disabling paging (CR0.PG=0), enabling physical-address extensions (CR4.PAE=1), loading CR3, enabling long mode (EFER.LME=1), and finally enabling paging (CR0.PG=1)....

Note that this is nothing like the "mode bit" that you claim can be set on a per-process basis.
Or, one could read your docs and take them to mean that the EFER.LME is the mode bit.

I never said that the "mode bit" was automatic - the process mode bit is a marker for the scheduler to "do the right thing". It takes a few instructions for the scheduler to "honor" the process mode bit.


In order for VMware to work as it does it needs to be constantly switching the processor in and out of 64-bit mode - switch to 64-bit mode and let the 64-bit virtualized OS run, then switch back to 32-bit mode and let 32-bit Windows do what it needs to do (and back and forth).

Also note that this is much more complex and resource intensive than a simple context switch from one thread/process to another.
And it's something that Windows x64 does constantly as you run a mix of 32-bit applications, 64-bit application, and the 64-bit OS. No one has noticed any performance problems due to the "complex and resource intensive" switch.

My main point, however, is that it *is* possible for a 32-bit operating system to run 64-bit tasks. VMware is the proof of this - even though the context/mode switching is done by the 32-bit VMware application, not the 32-bit O/S scheduler. The corollary to that point is that Microsoft already had a 64-bit version of Windows, no there was no need for a hybrid 32/64 bit effort - although it would have been possible, it was unnecessary.

AidenShaw
Jun 6, 2006, 08:03 PM
Good that you edited your original post to correct yourself. ;) What I was talking about is the ability of a 32-bit PPC application to use 64-bit general purpose registers.
But I didn't correct myself, I corrected your vague statement - it was wrong as posted. :D