PDA

View Full Version : Kentsfield, Cloverton Quad-Core CPUs Arriving Early?


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jul 20, 2006, 08:05 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

While Apple hasn't yet released its first Intel-based professional model desktop machine, many users are actively watching Intel's future roadmap for hints as to what may next appear in Apple's second revision Mac Pro and XServe machines. CNet News.com reported yesterday afternoon (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html) that Intel's quad-core desktop chip (Kentsfield) and Xeon-class chip (Cloverton) have been bumped up and should arrive before year's end.

Educated speculation would therefore indicate that Apple's second revision Mac Pro workstation will feature 8 cores, and other models will all become "Quad" machines. Most recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml) have indicated that the Mac Pro will use Apple's Xeon-class chips over "desktop" models such as Core 2 Duo "Conroe" and Kentsfield. With Conroe perhaps landing in a future iMac, further speculation would indicate that iMacs down the pipe will feature the 4-core Kentsfield processor.

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 08:07 AM
heavy

It looks like 2006 won't be like 1984

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 08:10 AM
Hmm, would make for an awesome rev b. MacPro on or around MWSF (probably "around" as MWSF is really a big consumer event).

Bring on the serious grunt!!

freeny
Jul 20, 2006, 08:10 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:
Im due a new computer and every time I hear about whats in the pipeline I bump my purchase date ahead another 4 months:o

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 08:11 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:

We just need most software to support that efficiently now.

Lollypop
Jul 20, 2006, 08:12 AM
seems the tragic days of the P4 are gone for intel, good for us! :p With all the high end stuff from intel thats apparently going into the mac im a bit worried about the price of the systems though!

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 08:14 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.

MacPro8?

The Mactopus??

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 08:16 AM
Hmm, would make for an awesome rev b. MacPro on or around MWSF (probably "around" as MWSF is really a big consumer event).

Bring on the serious grunt!!

Why not? Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system. Live via webstream, with an awesome keynote, and a presentation of Final Cut Pro using all eight cores to maximum effiency with a live render at a geecktacular speed:)

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 08:17 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.

MacPro8?

The Mactopus??

ByteCore

freeny
Jul 20, 2006, 08:18 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.

MacPro8?

The Mactopus??
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 08:20 AM
Why not? Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system. Live via webstream, with an awesome keynote, and a presentation of Final Cut Pro using all eight cores to maximum effiency with a live render at a geecktacular speed:)

Would be a very long keynote too:

- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff

topgunn
Jul 20, 2006, 08:20 AM
THIS is why IBM was given the boot.

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 08:23 AM
Would be a very long keynote too:

- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff

Strike:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed

Insert:
-release of 10.5

reallynotnick
Jul 20, 2006, 08:23 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).

NoNameBrand
Jul 20, 2006, 08:23 AM
The Mactopus

Well, I don't know about Apple, but when I get one, that's the name it'll have.:D

Scarlet Fever
Jul 20, 2006, 08:23 AM
wow. 8 cores. *drool

and i was just getting used to dual cores...

i cant wait till they turn up as refurbs... ill own one faster than you can say "no you dont"

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 08:24 AM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p

MrCrowbar
Jul 20, 2006, 08:25 AM
Would be a very long keynote too:

- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff

And one more thing: The Auad PowerMac has been the fastest Mac until today. I present to you the new Octa Mac Pro!"

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 08:25 AM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p


Very funny :)

moooosedude
Jul 20, 2006, 08:27 AM
The Mactopus??

So I was just in the office workin on my new Mactopus...

or

Hey honey! I just dropped 3K on our new Mactopus!

...It could be very fun.

~moooosedude

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 08:27 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).

It's the future, you know, soon the clock speed will be irrelevant and we'll be expressing processor speed in number of cores octocore, hexacore, tricontradicore, hexacontetracore, hecticosoctocore, and such and such

twoodcc
Jul 20, 2006, 08:30 AM
this can be only good news, as long as Apple keeps up with the pc world and put these processors in their computers when they are released. i sure hope that they do

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 08:32 AM
I have a question.

If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?

Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?

edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 08:34 AM
It's the future, you know, soon the clock speed will be irrelevant and we'll be expressing processor speed in number of cores octocore, hexacore, tricontradicore, hexacontetracore, hecticosoctocore, and such and such

You mean its the future today? I thought it was next week! :D

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 08:36 AM
The Mactopus??

Notice time. I bags it, I said it first, it's MINE!!!

My only...

My Mactopus...

satty
Jul 20, 2006, 08:38 AM
Not that I wouldn't mind more processing power :D ...

but to me it doesn't make much sense for the majority of tasks/applications.

There might be rare exceptions in the professinal area and of course it makes lots of sense for a server, but for a single user machine?

Whatever, bring them on... in this case I like to be proven wrong.

TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 2006, 08:38 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
The riduculous speculation is certainly getting out of control! A quad core iMac... I don't think so! Not for a long while. 8 Cores (ie dual-quads) will only become available in the top-end of the MacPro (assuming the MacPro does indeed go with the Xeon CPU), and the top-end XServes.

If you want wild speculation, here goes....
Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.

Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.

Any further speculation is just farcical! :eek:

Mr_Ed
Jul 20, 2006, 08:39 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.

MacPro8?

The Mactopus??


I got it!

The Macintosh Quadra!

No, wait . . . .
;)

Lollypop
Jul 20, 2006, 08:41 AM
It's the future, you know, soon the clock speed will be irrelevant and we'll be expressing processor speed in number of cores octocore, hexacore, tricontradicore, hexacontetracore, hecticosoctocore, and such and such

At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2! The nice thing about intel is that they seem to realise that, and have invested in improved IO as well, look at Pci express and SATA, you can have the fastest processor in the world, but if your running it with 512megs of memory your going to slow down fast!

(and no Im not a Intel rep, just think they are doing a good job at this point)

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 08:43 AM
I got it...

Octopros :D

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 08:45 AM
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.


I concur. Personally I'd like to see the MBs go to merom at some point relatively soon too but that's just wishful thinking as that's when I plan to get one.

j_maddison
Jul 20, 2006, 08:47 AM
THIS is why IBM was given the boot.

I doubt it had anything to do with the desktop/ server market. They switched because they had no viable alternative for their laptop range.

Jay

satty
Jul 20, 2006, 08:48 AM
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2! The nice thing about intel is that they seem to realise that, and have invested in improved IO as well, look at Pci express and SATA, you can have the fastest processor in the world, but if your running it with 512megs of memory your going to slow down fast!

(and no Im not a Intel rep, just think they are doing a good job at this point)

I agree, increasing the number of cores can't be the only solution on long term. In my opinion it's time to rethink CPUs: Single, maybe dual core, high processing* power with extremly low power consumption, much lower than we have nowadays.


* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 08:55 AM
I agree, increasing the number of cores can't be the only solution on long term. In my opinion it's time to rethink CPUs: Single, maybe dual core, high processing* power with extremly low power consumption, much lower than we have nowadays.


* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.

Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 08:58 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.

I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.

teme
Jul 20, 2006, 09:00 AM
All these rumors are making it so hard to decide when to get a new computer... my desktop and laptop are both about five years old. Though I don't have an urgent need to get a new ones, something new would surely be nice and useful.

At first I was waiting for a portable with Merom, but now I'm interested in portable with Santa Rosa platform and Merom... and that's not available until March 2007. For desktop I was waiting for Conroe, but it all depends how Apple is gonna use that chip. If they release a minitower (which I'm hoping for), I'm not sure would I get it right now or some months later (if Kentsfield is going to be released this year).

nighthawk
Jul 20, 2006, 09:03 AM
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2! The nice thing about intel is that they seem to realise that, and have invested in improved IO as well, look at Pci express and SATA, you can have the fastest processor in the world, but if your running it with 512megs of memory your going to slow down fast!

(and no Im not a Intel rep, just think they are doing a good job at this point)

Where you are going to see the difference is when you multi-task.

For Example: Burn a Blueray disk, render a FinalCut Pro movie, download your digital camera RAW files into Adobe Lightroom and run a batch, and watch your favorite movie from the iTunes Movie Store all without a single hiccup.

Lollypop
Jul 20, 2006, 09:03 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.

It depends on the architecture, its possible to have 24 1ghz cores being more power hungry than a single 24ghz processor.

Processor manufacturers are having problems increasing the amount of instructions they can execute, intels latest goal is to have the most amount of instructions executed with the least energy consumtion, but given constraints manufacturers are finding it easier to add a second processor than to scale a single processor to deliver the same performance as two "simpler" processors.

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 09:03 AM
All these rumors are making it so hard to decide when to get a new computer... my desktop and laptop are both about five years old. Though I don't have an urgent need to get a new ones, something new would surely be nice and useful.

At first I was waiting for a portable with Merom, but now I'm interested in portable with Santa Rosa platform and Merom... and that's not available until March 2007.

So going on the new release dates this might move forward to xmas now?

I'm not helping am I? :)

See normal PC users don't really hold out like Mac users have been used to doing. They just buy if they need a machine.

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 09:05 AM
Where you are going to see the difference is when you multi-task.

For Example: Burn a Blueray disk, render a FinalCut Pro movie, download your digital camera RAW files into Adobe Lightroom and run a batch, and watch your favorite movie from the iTunes Movie Store all without a single hiccup.

You're going to run into the hard disk being the bottle neck then. In principle though I agree with you.

boncellis
Jul 20, 2006, 09:06 AM
I wonder just how Apple would react to news that the next processor update is ahead of schedule. Presumably their plans are carefully laid out, and if a PC competitor can jump on Intel updates faster than they can without having to conform to a similar timeline, then Apple might get burned, if only slightly.

That's one aspect of the transition that I've always wondered about. Apple has often marketed new "products" more than "updates" in the past, but with Intel's speed of development, perhaps Apple will now focus more on updates and minimize redesigning/new releases. I don't think it's bad, just something of a departure from what I've grown accustomed to.

tny
Jul 20, 2006, 09:06 AM
I got it!

The Macintosh Quadra!

No, wait . . . .
;)


You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?

My "vote" goes for "Hex" - "The Mac Hex. Buy one and see." Then again, maybe not.

DStaal
Jul 20, 2006, 09:10 AM
Where you are going to see the difference is when you multi-task.

For Example: Burn a Blueray disk, render a FinalCut Pro movie, download your digital camera RAW files into Adobe Lightroom and run a batch, and watch your favorite movie from the iTunes Movie Store all without a single hiccup.

Bingo. Check how many processes are running on your computer right now, and you'll see why more cores can help. Writing a program to use multiple CPUs is complicated, yes, but OS X is already written to spread programs across multiple CPUs automatically.

It will take a while for people to come up with effective uses for that, but given the power we will find it.

satty
Jul 20, 2006, 09:10 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.

But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 09:12 AM
The Mactopus??
Am I the only one who thought of a case-mod idea after seeing this line? :eek:

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 09:13 AM
I wonder just how Apple would react to news that the next processor update is ahead of schedule. Presumably their plans are carefully laid out, and if a PC competitor can jump on Intel updates faster than they can without having to conform to a similar timeline, then Apple might get burned, if only slightly.

Remember Apple will be privvy to a lot more information that we as consumers are. They are probably on a level playing field at least with Intel compared with other PC vendors. They may even have a special relationship with Intel to get stuff slightly before people like Lenovo and Dell.

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 09:17 AM
I think you're a bit confused, 8x 3GHz cores doesn't equal 1x 24GHz processor.

No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"

DStaal
Jul 20, 2006, 09:18 AM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.

Not on an application level, but we will on a system level.

bigandy
Jul 20, 2006, 09:18 AM
yeah i have a suspicion they were pushed for Apple's intel power macs.

it just feels like it.

a tingling in my.... er.... um.... let's say "eyelid". ;) :rolleyes:

boncellis
Jul 20, 2006, 09:19 AM
Remember Apple will be privvy to a lot more information that we as consumers are. They are probably on a level playing field at least with Intel compared with other PC vendors. They may even have a special relationship with Intel to get stuff slightly before people like Lenovo and Dell.

That's a good point, I'm sure Intel gives them a heads-up because they are such a major vendor. My larger point though is whether Apple's modus operandi will have to change to accomodate, or take advantage rather, such an increase in availability of new technology.

Before I would look forward to a new form factor or case or structure--now I tend to think their designs will remain a little longer.

Barabas
Jul 20, 2006, 09:21 AM
Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 09:21 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"

Well next time say what you mean. It makes more sense. ;)

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 09:22 AM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.

Im not talking about performance, more about energy usage. I thought maybe they are using more cores as it is more energy efficient than using less cores or one big one. But as someone has pointed out its more likely a case of not having to squeeze more transistor thingies on a chip, they may as well just add another chip. :)

zero2dash
Jul 20, 2006, 09:24 AM
...Quad Duo?
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D

kev0476
Jul 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p

you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!

boncellis
Jul 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
...Quad Duo?
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D

Ha, if only. ;) The difference between software developers "taking advantage" of new functionality and "bloatware" is a matter of semantics at times.

dpMacsmith
Jul 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?

I even had a client that was using one until about a month ago. The hard drive died. But, that Quadra just kept going and going and going.

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 09:32 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Actually, this is well documented.

There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.

When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.

Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.

And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.

As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.

Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.

DStaal
Jul 20, 2006, 09:33 AM
...Quad Duo?
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D

If it can't model WW2 D-Day in full holographic 3D, with AI ground troops, AI generals, real physics and weather effects I garuntee you there will be people asking for more power.

(Now, doesn't that sound like a sweet game? :) )

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 09:37 AM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
A single application, if not multithreaded, won't see any performance boost.

But if you're running multiple applications at once, your overall system performance will definitely improve.

Also note that many of Apple's system facilities (like Core Image) are internally multithreaded. So apps that use these system services will see performance boosts even if the application developer didn't write any multithreading code into the app.

I am also certain that we'll see more and more developers using multithreading, now that all but the cheapest systems sold will have at least two cores. Especially with those apps that are CPU-intensive, and could therefore gain the most from multiprocessing.

(Gee, it seems like it was only a few short years ago that we were having this same discussion about AltiVec :) )

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 09:40 AM
Well next time say what you mean. It makes more sense. ;)

I did but instead of saying core at the end I said processor :D Which is the same thing so i didnt think it would matter. :p

Eidorian
Jul 20, 2006, 09:43 AM
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.8GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.Fixed

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 09:43 AM
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology.

Just stating 'I knew that' I just used it as an example. Chundles gets confused easily so I have to make things simple. Hi Chundles :D

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 09:44 AM
Just stating 'I knew that' I just used it as an example. Chundles gets confused easily so I have to make things simple. Hi Chundles :D

You'll keep...:p

miketcool
Jul 20, 2006, 09:50 AM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?

My quadra still runs, I guess I'm the forth party to get it.

This feels almost like an onion article:

Home Computer Gives Birth to Octuple-Cores

<enter photoshopped picture of a Mac Pro craddling its new born octuplets>

wizz0bang
Jul 20, 2006, 09:57 AM
Bring on the multi-core GPUs! :)

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 09:58 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)

But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.

If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.

If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.

nighthawk
Jul 20, 2006, 09:58 AM
My quadra still runs, I guess I'm the forth party to get it.

This feels almost like an onion article:

Home Computer Gives Birth to Octuple-Cores

<enter photoshopped picture of a Mac Pro craddling its new born octuplets>

My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?

BrianMojo
Jul 20, 2006, 09:59 AM
I got it!

The Macintosh Quadra!

No, wait . . . .
;)


Well, the 80's have made a comeback, who's to say the 90's won't be returning anytime soon?

guzhogi
Jul 20, 2006, 10:01 AM
Something I'd like to see is the framerate on Doom 3 if I played it on an 8-core Mac Pro w/ 2 of the fastest videocards in SLI/crossfire mode and one of those physics coprocessors (saying Doom 3 was optimized for it).

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 10:02 AM
Notice time. I bags it, I said it first, it's MINE!!!

My only...

My Mactopus...

Mactopus on Google gives you 18 hits

guzhogi
Jul 20, 2006, 10:07 AM
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)

But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.

If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.

If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).

sinisterdesign
Jul 20, 2006, 10:09 AM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 10:09 AM
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!

Wow Im having to do a lot of explaining of my posts, im beginning to think im a bit retarded. :(

24Ghz is (in my head) an 8 core machine running at 3Ghz i.e. 8x3=24

Its just an example to make things easier for people to answer my OP. :)

DISCLAIMER: All information contained within my posts sounded right in my head at the time of writing. However I may have been A) Quickly typing because I should actually be working B) Trying to be funny but failing miserabley or C) Drunk. It is not my intention to confuse people but I seem to do it quite easily and without knowledge. Please address any complaints to the complaints dept. at Microsoft Corporation.

milo
Jul 20, 2006, 10:12 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.

No way. It would be stupid for a web surfing machine. But for people who need the power, they're going to absolutely notice when it does things TWICE as fast. I say bring it on (and I'm running a quad and see a *huge* difference).

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 10:14 AM
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2!

How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac



Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.

I think that's the best name I've heard in this thread (sorry, Chundles)

boncellis
Jul 20, 2006, 10:22 AM
As far as the name goes, how about the "Mac Quattro Pro." ;) Then maybe Apple could acquire the rights to the software and include it in the iWork suite...

bretm
Jul 20, 2006, 10:39 AM
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...

El OchoCoro

shelterpaw
Jul 20, 2006, 10:43 AM
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.

It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 10:45 AM
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.

It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.


I think Logic can only use two cores/processors with a cludge to use the other two on a quad (by pretending it's a remote machine). Someone told me this though so I'm not 100% on that.

bretm
Jul 20, 2006, 10:45 AM
My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?

I think I used a SE 25 with a 12" monitor.

I also remember the first mac I purchased was the cheapest PowerMac they had. I remember upgrading the RAM from 8mb to 16mb and it cost over $300 for that 8mb chip!

ChrisA
Jul 20, 2006, 10:57 AM
.... Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system.

Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W

Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.

Zargot
Jul 20, 2006, 10:58 AM
I got it!

The Macintosh Quadra!

No, wait . . . .
;)

Pure Genius...

ChrisA
Jul 20, 2006, 11:00 AM
.... Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system.

Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now. The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads. The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K. A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W

Of course it does not run OS X but Gnome on Solaris has a very OS X -like "feel" to it.
It's a lot like a Mac Pro because Sun like Apple builds both the hardware and the OS and the machine ships with many of the same applications Both are unix based with a pretty point and click window system on top. Sun is also tranitioning to X86 but they are going much slower. So far only Sun's low-end machines have moved to AMD's Operon. All the high end stuff is still SPARC.

shelterpaw
Jul 20, 2006, 11:02 AM
All these rumors are making it so hard to decide when to get a new computer... my desktop and laptop are both about five years old. Though I don't have an urgent need to get a new ones, something new would surely be nice and useful. You essentially answered your own question. Get it when you need it, if you don't need it, then don't bother. If you're upgrading your apps in the next year or so, then it may make sense, but if you're not, then stay where you are. New is always nice until 6 months later when it's not so new and something nicer comes along.

Personally, I wouldn't hold out for some super ultra machine becuase the super ultramachine x2 will be around the corner. . If it fits my needs, then it's the choice I'll make.

terkans
Jul 20, 2006, 11:04 AM
2nd generation intel Mac Pro...
8 cores...
2^3 = 8

Mac Pro 2 Cubed

[cue 'return of the cubes']

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 11:11 AM
However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).
If that's all your requirements are, then you would be able to get by very nicely on an old G3 system (assuming you can cram enough RAM into it.)

We have long since exceeded the amount of CPU power needed for things like basic Office apps, and are several orders of magnitude more powerful than what's needed for a calculator or solitare program!

But this really should not come as a surprise to anybody. For basic word processing (without any embedded objects), my old Apple //c with AppleWorks is more than powerful enough. And that's with a 1MHz 6502 processor, 128K of RAM and two floppy drives!

People are so used to bloatware and insane amounts of eye-candy, that they start thinking they actually need supercomputer power in order to write a memo or send a fax.

shelterpaw
Jul 20, 2006, 11:11 AM
I think Logic can only use two cores/processors with a cludge to use the other two on a quad (by pretending it's a remote machine). Someone told me this though so I'm not 100% on that.I'm not sure either and I shouldn't have made the assumption. I know Ableton and Cubase do as I've used both and I'm now an avid Ableton user. I'd imagine Logic will take full advantage sometime soon since it's now one of Apple's pro applications. It certainly makes sense considering how bogged down your system gets once you load enough virtual instruments and effects.

smokeyboi
Jul 20, 2006, 11:14 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?

jholzner
Jul 20, 2006, 11:23 AM
If you want wild speculation, here goes....
Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.



Somehow I doubt that Intel would change thier roadmap for/because of Apple. They are probably one of their smallest customers :P

TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 2006, 11:25 AM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right? [snip]

I'm one of them! :eek: What I woudn't have given for a Quadra 650 when they came out. I was stuck with an LC (original pizza box Mac). In fact, I'd have been happy with the LC475 (which was basically a cut-down Quadra 605)!! :)

Eventually did get an LC475... minus the case. Oh, those were the days!

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 11:25 AM
Somehow I doubt that Intel would change thier roadmap for/because of Apple. They are probably one of their smallest customers :P

For an individual customer Apple are actually quite large. They are also high profile.

TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 2006, 11:27 AM
Somehow I doubt that Intel would change thier roadmap for/because of Apple. They are probably one of their smallest customers :P

I did say that it was WILD speculation. Maybe I should get a job at ThinkSecret?! :rolleyes:

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 11:28 AM
Not quite the first. Sun has been shipping a commercial 8-core systems for about a year now.
Yes. This is their UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) chip.
The T2000 has all 8 cores on one chip but each core also does four-way hyper threading so they claim 32 hardware threads.
The T1 chip ships in several different configurations. 4-, 6- and 8-cores, at 1.0 or 1.2GHz. All sporting 4 threads per core.
The price for an 8-core T1000 is about $8K.
While this is their least expensive 8-core box, you should point out (for the benefit of everyone else reading this message) that the price is not just for the CPU. It's for a high-end server that includes 8G of RAM, 4 Gigabit Ethernet ports, remote management software, Java Enterprise, and Solaris 10. All in a 1U-high rack chassis.
A system with 8 cores and 8GB RAM burns about 250W.
You are being very misleading here. According to Sun's spec sheet (http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t1000/specifications.jsp), it has a 300W power supply. Peak power consumption for the entire system is 220W, and typical consumption is 180W.

But those are for the entire system. Sun's page on the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) processor itself says that the CPU (in its 32-thread configuration) consumes 72W. The rest of that power consumption is from parts other than the CPU.

It's also worth noting Intel's Xeon spec sheet (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/specs.htm), which lists the fastest chips as consuming 130W for the CPU package alone! And that is with only four threads (two cores with 2-way hyperthreading.) I can guarantee you that a system based on one of these will have peak power consumption far greater than 220W.

TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 2006, 11:28 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?
No. I shouldn't think any laptop will be getting Kentsfield for a while....

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 11:35 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?

Here's a top article on Intel's future plans:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/

RedTomato
Jul 20, 2006, 11:35 AM
Definitely need 8 cores me.

One for running whatever program I'm working on.

One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.

One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..

One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.

One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.

One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.

One for running whatever program I'm running inside the Windows XP virtualisation machine that regularly slows to a crawl when I'm trying to do something useful.

One to rule them all and take over from the other cores when one of them crashes as still seems to happen every now and then on OS X.

/tongue from cheek

TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 2006, 11:40 AM
I have a question.

If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?

Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?

edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.

Intel has for the last few years restricted the "destop" parts to single socket systems. ** If Intel continues along these lines, then Kentsfield will also be restricted to single socket systems (ie a maximum of 4 cores).

Cloverton, being the "Xeon" equivalent will support multi-socket systems, taking us to the quoted 8 cores for dual-cpu systems.


====
**The Pentium III S was the last "desktop" CPU which could be used in a dual cpu configuration. P4's were always "crippled" to work only in single-cpu systems.

m-dogg
Jul 20, 2006, 11:42 AM
The Mactopus??

Mmmmmm....8 beautiful delicious cores!

[drools]

shawnce
Jul 20, 2006, 11:43 AM
Strike:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed

Insert:
-release of 10.5

Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.

Homy
Jul 20, 2006, 11:44 AM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?:p

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 11:46 AM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.

He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.

I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.

Carlson-online
Jul 20, 2006, 11:47 AM
I remember hearing about how it is possible to make multiple cores act like one (Idon't remember where I heard this). Anyways, whether 8 cores acting separately or together like 1 big processor has an advantage depends on the program you use. If the program is multi-threaded, then the cores acting separately might have the advantage while single threaded apps will have an advantage if the cores are acting like one. However, many apps today won't see that much improvement either way (like a simple calculator, or solitare and word processing).

yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html

adamfilip
Jul 20, 2006, 11:48 AM
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad

Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16

$3950

j_maddison
Jul 20, 2006, 11:53 AM
How fast do you want mail to go?

As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:

shawnce
Jul 20, 2006, 11:55 AM
He was referring to my post in which I was referring to MWSF '07, not the WWDC.

Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.

I still don't think we'll se a full release at MWSF but I think the date will be announced.

Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.

mwswami
Jul 20, 2006, 11:56 AM
See http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 for comparison of Woodcrest, Opteron, and Ultrasparc T1.

Dual Woodcrest (4 threads) easily outperformed Ultrasparc T1 (32 threads). The power consumption of the dual 3.0GHz Woodcrest system came out to be 245W compared to 188W for the Sun T2000 with 8-core Ultrasparc T1. But, the metric that's most important is performance/watt and that's where Woodcrest came out as a clear winner.

terkans
Jul 20, 2006, 11:56 AM
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
um, no:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html

shawnce
Jul 20, 2006, 11:56 AM
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html

Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)

(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")

GFLPraxis
Jul 20, 2006, 12:01 PM
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.


I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?

On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.

In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.

boncellis
Jul 20, 2006, 12:05 PM
double post, my apologies.

4JNA
Jul 20, 2006, 12:06 PM
'speakable items on' 'selecting hal9000 voice'

what are you doing dave?

you know i can't let you apply the filter to those pictures in that manner.

dave, i'm scared...

'speakable items off'

now we just need the big red glowing light on the front instead of the white one...:eek:

boncellis
Jul 20, 2006, 12:07 PM
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.



Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.

Can't wait to hear your take on it, shawnce. I have to admit that I enjoy your rejoinders whenever the trolls show up, so your take is particularly refreshing in my opinion.

whatever
Jul 20, 2006, 12:10 PM
Hmm, would make for an awesome rev b. MacPro on or around MWSF (probably "around" as MWSF is really a big consumer event).

Bring on the serious grunt!!
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 12:14 PM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.

I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations

boncellis
Jul 20, 2006, 12:17 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.

That makes a lot of sense, actually. I hadn't thought of it, but with a server class processor ostensibly powering the Mac Pro, it begs the question of what the servers will get as an upgrade.

The simple answer--next generation server chips, duh!

patrick0brien
Jul 20, 2006, 12:28 PM
There might be rare exceptions in the professinal area and of course it makes lots of sense for a server, but for a single user machine?

-satty

I just kicked of a 6450 frame render on Gabriel (see specs below). According to the average frame time, it'll take until August 4th to complete.

I'd reeeeeally like this alleged machine.

CJM
Jul 20, 2006, 12:35 PM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?

My "vote" goes for "Hex" - "The Mac Hex. Buy one and see." Then again, maybe not.

16 here, but I still get it :p

Come on, some Mac fans do a little research now and again :P

TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 2006, 12:44 PM
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?

On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.

In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.

Only time will tell. :)

Lollypop
Jul 20, 2006, 12:47 PM
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:

Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?

Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?

Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?

Teddy's
Jul 20, 2006, 12:47 PM
"The-Most-Powerful-machine-more-powerful-than-Pentium1-2-3-4-Merom-Conroe-Norah-Or-was-it-Jonah-or-Yonah-Xeon-Neon-Freon-Argon-Vista-Panther-JamesBond-MrBean-Xmen-Batman-and-Jesus-put-together"

And more famous than the Beatles...

Jopling
Jul 20, 2006, 12:51 PM
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad

Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16

$3950

If that came out in August I'd wet my pants. It's exactly what I want. I need to get a promachine before I move in August.

MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 2006, 12:52 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.

*POP*

Oh you ****!

JDawg76
Jul 20, 2006, 12:53 PM
Anyone on here agree that we are entering the world of PC's of sh*ot in the way where we buy a Mac and 2 months later there's news of something better down the road? Or is this just for now since this is the transition period for Apple to the Intel chips. Just curious.

ClimbingTheLog
Jul 20, 2006, 12:56 PM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).

Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.

you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!

Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.

eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?

Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"

How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac

Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.

Bring the speed.

NoNameBrand
Jul 20, 2006, 01:04 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.


What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.

ClimbingTheLog
Jul 20, 2006, 01:04 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.

Apple doesn't get to operate in a bubble anymore - in Intel Land you have to compete. If they executed your plan, Dell would just go and make a "workstation" with dual Kentsfield and Apple will get crushed in Photoshop benchmarks. No way they're going to allow that.

gnasher729
Jul 20, 2006, 01:06 PM
I have a question.

If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?

Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?

Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?

Zargot
Jul 20, 2006, 01:07 PM
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad

Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16

$3950


More like $13,950

:rolleyes:

gnasher729
Jul 20, 2006, 01:21 PM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.

Absolutely.

The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.

However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.

As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.

Phobophobia
Jul 20, 2006, 01:24 PM
More like $13,950

:rolleyes:

You're both wrong. The price is infinite because it doesn't exist, and yet there is demand. ;)

gnasher729
Jul 20, 2006, 01:26 PM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.

True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.

DaveTheGrey
Jul 20, 2006, 01:52 PM
with 8 cores, the aps will show up two secs BEFORE you'll have clicked on the icon. :D

Squareball
Jul 20, 2006, 02:02 PM
So will this be a "Quad 2 Duo" ;)

Stridder44
Jul 20, 2006, 02:27 PM
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?

On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.

In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.


But what about the MacBook!! *weeps*

MacsRgr8
Jul 20, 2006, 02:28 PM
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.

Probably Single CPU bound....

It will be gr8 being able to get 8 cores in a Mac, but if the software dosn't use it....
Someone already mentioned that it also gives you the possibility to use those cores by using many apps at once. This is true, but I wonder how many often you will actually use all those cores at once.

Let's hope the "opposite of Hyperthreading" will come along (Leopard feature???).. So, instead of a "emulating" a Dual Core / CPU config (like on later Pentium 4's), emulate a Single CPU on multiple cores. :cool:
Then, you get 8 * 3 GHz = 1 * 24 GHz...!!!

emotion
Jul 20, 2006, 02:31 PM
I'm not sure either and I shouldn't have made the assumption. I know Ableton and Cubase do as I've used both and I'm now an avid Ableton user. I'd imagine Logic will take full advantage sometime soon since it's now one of Apple's pro applications. It certainly makes sense considering how bogged down your system gets once you load enough virtual instruments and effects.

I'm a Live user too. I wouldn't assume the forthcoming Live 6 supports more than two cores though.

I agree about Logic and the multi core support. They should have done this for the G5 quads though (I hear the quad owners scream :) ).

Edit: apparently Live 6 supports more than two cores/procs

camomac
Jul 20, 2006, 02:39 PM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?


haha, then Doctor Q's signature could be-

"Oh do pay attention 007. In the wrong hands, this Octopussy could be very dangerous."


LOL.:D

cgc
Jul 20, 2006, 02:45 PM
I think I'll still get the low-end Intel Tower in August/September, but I'm curious if the XEON 51xx chip could be replaced with a quad-core Intel chip.

yac_moda
Jul 20, 2006, 03:07 PM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?

NOW THAT, would be one CRAZZZZZYYY little baby POOOOOP :eek: :eek: :eek:

Maybe, Mac raised to the power of INFINITY -- FOR ALL YOU INFINITY LOOP LOVERS -- mobius loop that is !?!?!?!?!!?? :p

Of course, Moby would have to a do a recording studio promo for that one or maybe http://www.mobiusmusic.com/.

MrCrowbar
Jul 20, 2006, 03:22 PM
But what about the MacBook!! *weeps*
I guess Macbooks will get Merom as soon as Merom is cheaper than the current Yonah and the Yonah Macbooks are sold out. And that might be pretty soon actually. By the way, Merom is pin compatible so Apple can just swap Ypnah for Merom. The user will have a hard time to do this, as the processor in Macbooks are soldered on. But in iMacs, no problemo.

whatever
Jul 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Apple doesn't get to operate in a bubble anymore - in Intel Land you have to compete. If they executed your plan, Dell would just go and make a "workstation" with dual Kentsfield and Apple will get crushed in Photoshop benchmarks. No way they're going to allow that.
Neither Apple or Dell operate in bubbles. They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.

In 2007 we will finally get to see Apple force their way more into Sun's market.

QCassidy352
Jul 20, 2006, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.

What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.

yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.

iris_failsafe
Jul 20, 2006, 03:54 PM
I am liking this Intel switch more and more. Stevo you were right again...

patrick0brien
Jul 20, 2006, 04:05 PM
with 8 cores, the aps will show up two secs BEFORE you'll have clicked on the icon. :D

-Dave187

Tachyon processing WooHooo!

kevin.rivers
Jul 20, 2006, 04:19 PM
With all these great technological feats you would think they could get a Mighty Mouse BT on my desk...

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 04:23 PM
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power.

Actually, that was my point, but now that you mention it, reversed hyperthreading would solve some problems.

In the long run (really long run, I'm talking quantumcomputers here) however, you are right, and innovation in computing will mostly come from software and how you tell the computer what to do. The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going, well I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger. Boom. It happens.

milo
Jul 20, 2006, 04:34 PM
I think Logic can only use two cores/processors with a cludge to use the other two on a quad (by pretending it's a remote machine). Someone told me this though so I'm not 100% on that.

This is true. Logic will use up to about half the available processing power. Using the kludge (which is pretty simple but has some limitations) you can get close to all of it. Which allows for a ton more power than any of the dual G5s.

Still, apple needs to update Logic ASAP to use the full power without a hack. I can't believe it's taken them this long, they BETTER make the fix for all quad machines and not just intel boxes.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.

I don't buy that. Apple needs a workstation machine with the fastest available chips. PC's will use them in workstations, it would make no sense to cripple the top of the line desktop machine! Servers are distinguished from the pro line because they have a completely different form factor and feature set, no need to add artificial distincions.

Neither Apple or Dell operate in bubbles. They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.

You don't think ANY pc makers will ship workstations with kentsfield? Why not? This is a chip that would be perfect for a workstation, you think nobody will take the opportunity to use it? The chips are fast as hell, what makes you think they only belong in servers? Are there features that can only be taken advantage of in a server and not in a workstation?

shawnce
Jul 20, 2006, 04:47 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.

Kentsfield is not really targeted as a server class chip, it is targeted towards single socket desktop/workstation systems. I doubt we will ever see it an Xserve system.

Apple will likely use a single and dual Xeon 51xx (Woodcrest) in their Xserve systems possibly with the quad core Xeon a little farther down the road (aka Clovertown and later Tigerton).

Review... roadmap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture#Road_map)


They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.

Mac OS X already can deal with quad core systems and can support more cores without any real issues.

Multimedia
Jul 20, 2006, 04:50 PM
So We May Be Seeing A Very Short Life For What Steve Introduces August 7. If true, this looks like Steve may be able to claim an all Quad Core plus Oct Core on top Mac Pro line PLUS Quad Core iMacs at his annual SF MacWorld SteveNote January 9,2007 perhaps with Leopard on board as well. Wouldn't that be a Merry belated Christmas and a Happiest of New Years? :eek: :D :p :cool: ;) :)

iJawn108
Jul 20, 2006, 04:55 PM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
I really laughed out loud at that. :p

aswitcher
Jul 20, 2006, 04:55 PM
First rev prices for any such beasts are going to be "excessive"

meanmusic
Jul 20, 2006, 05:01 PM
According to Daily Tech Merom is already shipping! Intel announced it during Intel's Q2'06 earnings report. Is an upgraded MBP going to make an appearance at the WWDC?

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3421

Macnoviz
Jul 20, 2006, 05:07 PM
Let's hope the "opposite of Hyperthreading" will come along (Leopard feature???).. So, instead of a "emulating" a Dual Core / CPU config (like on later Pentium 4's), emulate a Single CPU on multiple cores. :cool:
Then, you get 8 * 3 GHz = 1 * 24 GHz...!!!

I think Reverse Hyperthreading will have to be processor-bound, like Hyperthreading. Intel has its mitosis project, so let's hope that works out well!

gnasher729
Jul 20, 2006, 05:12 PM
I think Reverse Hyperthreading will have to be processor-bound, like Hyperthreading. Intel has its mitosis project, so let's hope that works out well!

There is no such thing as "Reverse Hyperthreading". This has been completely debunked.

Derekasaurus
Jul 20, 2006, 05:18 PM
If you want wild speculation, here goes.... Apple might use the Conroe and ConroeXE in the first Mac Pros and then add in support for Kentsfield (quad) when it becomes available. This could well be the reason why Intel has brought forward the release of Kentsfield.
Apple is playing with the big boys now. Intel moved up Kentsfield in response to AMD's 4x4, not anything Apple might do. Intel sells hundreds of millions of CPUs per year; Apple's demand is barely above the noise.

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 05:41 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.

Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Historically, Apple has always sold a dual-processor model of the Pro systems. When dual-core PPCs became available, they shipped a G5 system with two of these.

In the absence of any other information, it seems pretty darn obvious that the high-end Mac Pro will have two processors, regardless of how many cores are in it. Which means it will have to be something from the Xeon line.

Apple doesn't need to cripple the Mac Pro in order to promote the Xserve. The two products are designed for completely different applications and are not interchangeable for any serious applications. Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 05:50 PM
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
...
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports
and serial-port management capability
and Mac OS X server preloaded
and no bundled video hardware

The processor and hard drive can be identical to a G5 or Mac Pro, and neither will cut into the other's business. An Xserve makes for a lousy desktop, and a G5 tower is overpriced and not as good when used as a cluster node.

shawnce
Jul 20, 2006, 05:56 PM
...
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports


Current PowerMacs have both of these... it supports ECC and has dual GigE

Eidorian
Jul 20, 2006, 05:57 PM
According to Daily Tech Merom is already shipping! Intel announced it during Intel's Q2'06 earnings report. Is an upgraded MBP going to make an appearance at the WWDC?

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3421¡¿Qué?!

manu chao
Jul 20, 2006, 06:14 PM
Definitely need 8 cores me.

One for running whatever program I'm working on.

One for running the OS X interface, with Core Image, and bells and whistles and brass knobs and shiny candy.

One for running Azerus or LimeWire or one of these Bittorrent clients that all seem to be in Java on the mac, and all slow my machine to a crawl..

One for running Firefox and rendering these java / flash adverts that seem to slow my machine to a crawl.

One for doing the video rendering that still slows my machine to a crawl for hours and hours.

One for running the Windows XP virtualisation machine in a window on my desktop that seemed to slow my machine to a crawl last time I tried it.

One for running whatever program I'm running inside the Windows XP virtualisation machine that regularly slows to a crawl when I'm trying to do something useful.

One to rule them all and take over from the other cores when one of them crashes as still seems to happen every now and then on OS X.

/tongue from cheek
And I thought 4 cores would really be enough...:D

But I guess I would be fine with 4 cores for the time being (except when running Apple's pro apps which can use all 4 cores leaving none for Parallels).

MrCrowbar
Jul 20, 2006, 06:16 PM
Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.

Hehe, I remember Virginia Tech having built the 3rd fastest supercomputer out of 1100 dual powermacs G5. Back then, the XServe G5 wasn't available. You can see that in the MWSF 2004 keynote (minute 25 ff). They later switched to the Xserve G5 when those came out. It had 10.28 TF for just $5.2M.

patrick0brien
Jul 20, 2006, 06:39 PM
Actually, that was my point, but now that you mention it, reversed hyperthreading would solve some problems.

In the long run (really long run, I'm talking quantumcomputers here) however, you are right, and innovation in computing will mostly come from software and how you tell the computer what to do. The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going, well I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger. Boom. It happens.

-Macnoviz

Woah. Well, there's more than raw computing involved there, there is context for the computer to understand. What is the "sun" what does "Dominant" really mean? What are power lines? What does "remove" really mean? And let's not go into what kind of DB would be needed to describe all of the differences a person's face exhibits over a lifetime!

I'm sure we'll get there and such 'life' DB's built I hope there is a standard set! Who says we don't need this really big drives!

Multimedia
Jul 20, 2006, 06:58 PM
Merom Already Shipping
According to Daily Tech Merom is already shipping! Intel announced it during Intel's Q2'06 earnings report. Is an upgraded MBP going to make an appearance at the WWDC?

"...Otellini confirmed that quad-core isn't the only processor series moved up. The CEO confirmed Merom has been moved up and is already shipping to revenue, as was reported by HKEPC (English) several days ago. Intel's Tulsa processors for Xeon MP are also already shipping to revenue according to Otellini, but the availability of these processors has largely been overshadowed by yesterday's launch of Itanium 2 Montecito and the recent launch of Xeon DP Woodcrest.

Typically there is a two to three week lag between revenue shipments and retail availability, so expect to see many of these new "shipping to revenue" processors before the end of the month." (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3421)Wow, if true and Apple is ready with the new body, we might see the all new Mobile Pro Core 2 Duo Mac sooner than any of us expected. That would be great. :) Only 18 days until we find out. :D

whatever
Jul 20, 2006, 07:37 PM
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Now you're not thinking like a competitive company that needs to continue to make money.

Sun is on the ropes and Apple now has a chance to soar in and take a lot of business from them.

Abstract
Jul 20, 2006, 07:42 PM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.

MacPro8?

The Mactopus??

Orgy-core.

xPismo
Jul 20, 2006, 07:43 PM
The party just keeps getting better. I'm so ready for the new ultra MBP.

Go WWDC!

RedTomato
Jul 20, 2006, 07:48 PM
Orgy-core.

That gets my vote.

Or Octopussy.

http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_o/octopussy.jpg

Multimedia
Jul 20, 2006, 08:05 PM
I'm betting on Mac Pro OctaCore 2 :D

Should that "a" be an "o" ?

shamino
Jul 20, 2006, 08:18 PM
Hehe, I remember Virginia Tech having built the 3rd fastest supercomputer out of 1100 dual powermacs G5. Back then, the XServe G5 wasn't available. You can see that in the MWSF 2004 keynote (minute 25 ff). They later switched to the Xserve G5 when those came out. It had 10.28 TF for just $5.2M.
And I remember that they were very concerned about the lack of ECC memory, and were extremely eager to replace them with Xserves as soon as the G5 model came out.

yac_moda
Jul 20, 2006, 08:26 PM
I'm betting on Mac Pro OctaCore 2 :D

Should that "a" be an "o" ?


Its Mac raised to the power of INFINITY :eek:

The loga will just be a mobius loop !!!

Chundles
Jul 20, 2006, 08:31 PM
And I remember that they were very concerned about the lack of ECC memory, and were extremely eager to replace them with Xserves as soon as the G5 model came out.

Yeah, the original PowerMac G5 cluster thingy was really just a proof of concept that a high-powered supercomputer could be made from Macs and using the Mac OS. It never ran anything mission critical because of the lack of ECC RAM which could cause all sorts of trouble with calculations if there was even one bit flip.

Once the XServe came out with ECC support they swapped out the PowerMacs (I think MacMall had a big sale of the PMs from the Virginia system) and replaced them with 2.3GHz XServes made specially for them by Apple - at the time I think the XServes were only 2GHz so Apple made a bunch of 2.3GHz systems for Virginia to counteract the effect of the time they lost replacing the PowerMacs.

kenaustus
Jul 20, 2006, 08:52 PM
If Intel designates Kentsfield as a desktop processor it will make its way into Mac Pros as fast as the competition can deliver their desktop versions. Apple is now one of the "Intel Big Boys" and there will be continual (internal & external) pressure not to be left behind.

I would also think Apple is getting ready for Kentsfield - they have had the same pre-release information that the other Intel Big Boys have received.

I think that the surprise will be next month when Steve J is talking about Leopard. He'll mention something like, "You might have read a bit about a new chip from Intel called Kentsfield. You might like to know that Leopard is designed to take full advantage of Kentsfield when it's released." He really doesn't need to say anything else - that alone will drive MS nuts.

With a quad core arriving rather fast I believe that Apple may be looking at the headless range. Right now there is only the mini and (upcoming) Pro. Lots of room in between the two and that room gets bigger with Kentsfield. It presents a very good argument for a mid range headless to fill the gap.

SInce the mini has been out for a while there will be a lot of users that "switched" to a Mac because of the mini and now went something more powerful - without loosing their investment in their display. If the Pro is overkill then APple is going to loose the upgrade. Others, like me, use a PB with a large display - mine is the 23". I don't want a huge tower under the table and I don't see the value of moving to a mini. I'll reach for the credit card after Kentsfield is released IF there is a mid-range that excites me.

HelloKitty
Jul 20, 2006, 08:52 PM
Well..I wonder if Apple indeed comes up with the Mac Pro update using even the top-of-the-line Xeon, who's gonna buy one knowing that a quad-core processor is coming up in the near future? I mean, I would hold off buying a Woodcrest machine if there's a quad-core is coming up next year..

I know people will always say that "if you need one, buy one. Don't wait for new machines." But hey, it's a 2 grand machine!

Perhaps we won't be seeing a Woodcrest Mac Pro at this year's WWDC at all. Perhaps we'll be seeing a quad-core Mac Pro proto-type that will be available in Novemeber or something like that:D !

Silentwave
Jul 20, 2006, 09:07 PM
Well..I wonder if Apple indeed comes up with the Mac Pro update using even the top-of-the-line Xeon, who's gonna buy one knowing that a quad-core processor is coming up in the near future? I mean, I would hold off buying a Woodcrest machine if there's a quad-core is coming up next year..

I know people will always say that "if you need one, buy one. Don't wait for new machines." But hey, it's a 2 grand machine!

Perhaps we won't be seeing a Woodcrest Mac Pro at this year's WWDC at all. Perhaps we'll be seeing a quad-core Mac Pro proto-type that will be available in Novemeber or something like that:D !

I don't know what intel's pricing will be on the Clovertowns....it is possible that Woodcrest will take a price dive when clovertown comes out and clovertown would take its place, or it is possible clovertown will be more expensive. Kentsfield is I think supposed to be an Extreme Edition?

macsrockmysocks
Jul 20, 2006, 10:09 PM
I mean, this is a good thing that they are coming out with all of these brand new processors. But it bums me out that my current iMac will be outdated..:( . O well, I guess i wil move on, and be happy with my perfect mac!

yac_moda
Jul 20, 2006, 10:25 PM
I just applied to a job at MS, its not the first time either last time they emailed me and asked for more information concerning the position -- had to answer questions on line :eek: :mad: :p

This time I had to create a new profile though and in the profile where the resume was everything worked fine ACCEPT !!!

I could not enter ANY text in the field for the RESUME !!

I could only put 0 text in the RESUME FIELD !

So I submitted for the job, a resume name, but NO resume !!!!!!!

That's .NET technology for you ...


Don't you LOVE Microsoft ;) :D

Erasmus
Jul 20, 2006, 11:21 PM
The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going: "Well, I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger". Boom. It happens.

<offtopic>
That would require Artificial Intelligence. If a computer can understand your speech, recognise your choice of words and understands that you don't neccessarily mean what you say all the time, then that's AI. If it can recognise specific objects in an "analogue" media such as a photograph, (I don't care if its a digital photo or not), it's AI. If it can then implement what it has learned alongside its infinite computational precision to remake a photo, while keeping it completely realistic, and making it look exactly how we wanted it to look, that's amazing, and lots of people will be out of jobs.

But if you have an AI system working for you, what's the point of working? ;)

BTW, I mean proper "hard" AI, not some pathetic "Ooh, forom your phone number you must live there, therefore I'll direct you to that Pizza Hut outlet! Aren't I smart!" type of AI.

<rant>
Erasmus 4 AI, Nuclear Power, GM, Stem Cell Research, and every other form of Science and Technology. Our lives will only benefit from all these, as will our community and our planet.
</rant>
</offtopic>

Don't Hurt Me.

I have to ask again, even though others already have, is Kentsfield a drop-in replacement for Conroe, if either a Mid-Tower or the iMac get Conroe? (Or Cloverton or whatever the desktop one is)

Still hanging out for WWDC2006.

ART5000
Jul 20, 2006, 11:57 PM
ANy gurus on hand here..

is it possible that Apple will come out with dual woocrest then when kentfield hits the street, we could just buy the processor and snap out woody and snap in Kentfield.

IS THIS FEASIBLE:rolleyes:

Shagrat
Jul 21, 2006, 12:28 AM
You realize there are probably only four people on this board who are old enough to get that joke, right?


5.
:(

Macnoviz
Jul 21, 2006, 02:22 AM
<offtopic>
That would require Artificial Intelligence. If a computer can understand your speech, recognise your choice of words and understands that you don't neccessarily mean what you say all the time, then that's AI. If it can recognise specific objects in an "analogue" media such as a photograph, (I don't care if its a digital photo or not), it's AI. If it can then implement what it has learned alongside its infinite computational precision to remake a photo, while keeping it completely realistic, and making it look exactly how we wanted it to look, that's amazing, and lots of people will be out of jobs.
-Macnoviz

Woah. Well, there's more than raw computing involved there, there is context for the computer to understand. What is the "sun" what does "Dominant" really mean? What are power lines? What does "remove" really mean? And let's not go into what kind of DB would be needed to describe all of the differences a person's face exhibits over a lifetime!

I'm sure we'll get there and such 'life' DB's built I hope there is a standard set! Who says we don't need this really big drives!

That's where the internet comes in. Of course, it's a pipe dream, at least for the next thirthy years. But who knows, maybe some day they will unleash a web crawler with a rough AI onto the internet to soak up all information, thus creating one superbrain, connected to the internet. Isaac Asimov anyone?

Macnoviz
Jul 21, 2006, 02:23 AM
I think that the surprise will be next month when Steve J is talking about Leopard. He'll mention something like, "You might have read a bit about a new chip from Intel called Kentsfield. You might like to know that Leopard is designed to take full advantage of Kentsfield when it's released." He really doesn't need to say anything else - that alone will drive MS nuts.

Maybe they will want to implement it pushing the release back to december:D

Bye Bye Baby
Jul 21, 2006, 03:33 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!

Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.

Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!

Let's hope so!!!

MacQuest
Jul 21, 2006, 05:42 AM
It's the future, you know, soon the clock speed will be irrelevant and we'll be expressing processor speed in number of cores octocore, hexacore, tricontradicore, hexacontetracore, hecticosoctocore, and such and such

Word.

Mac Kiwi
Jul 21, 2006, 05:47 AM
How about Super Mac :D


Eight cores I cant wait.


Imagine 32 bit passes at 4k in your 3D apps with all the extras.....Eight render lines screeching down the screen.

TangoCharlie
Jul 21, 2006, 05:59 AM
ANy gurus on hand here..

is it possible that Apple will come out with dual woocrest then when kentfield hits the street, we could just buy the processor and snap out woody and snap in Kentfield.

IS THIS FEASIBLE:rolleyes:

No. Kentsfield will be an LGA775 (same as P4, Conroe), whereas the Woodcrest is an LGA771 (Xeon), so, no you will not be able to pop a Kentsfield into the Woodcrests' socket.

However, Cloverto[w]n will be an LGA771, so you'll be able (in theory) to pop one (or two!) Clovertown based Xeons into your brand new HP xw8400 oops, Apple Mac Pro and watch as your case melts. :confused:

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 05:59 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!

Besides, for 90% of what non-pro users do, these advances will help very little. Internet will still run at the same spead and my ipod will still chug along with USB2 etc.

Pros with pro apps acn rejoice, only if software keeps the pace!!!

Let's hope so!!!Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already. I'm sure that all the developers will be looking at how to use all the cores Intel can throw at them at this year's WWDC. :)

I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to fill up four cores with work and max out what you can do simultaneously on the G5 Quad. So for those of us who do the kind of work that needs a lot of cores, 8 core Macs won't come soon enough.

In this example, all of the applications are running slower than they would with 8 cores. They are already slowed down by virtue of only having 4 cores to work in. Both Toast 7 and Handbrake can use more than two cores for each instance. I sometimes run as many as three of each simultaneously. They each have to run dog slow in that circumstance due to lack of core volume. So 8 is a start. 16 would be much more helpful to me immediately.

Chundles
Jul 21, 2006, 06:02 AM
I'm going to start saving now for whatever the latest and greatest Mac desktop/monitor combination is in around 2010.

Then I'll post pics of me using it for Word, internet browsing and email. Maybe a bit of iTunes.

Those 16+ cores and lots of RAM will make Safari absolutely fly!!!

TangoCharlie
Jul 21, 2006, 06:04 AM
How about Super Mac :D[snip]

I've already got one. A SuperMac C500 to be precise! (Well, actually it's an Apus 2000, but in the US it was the C500).

SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/

:)

mkjj
Jul 21, 2006, 06:23 AM
This time I had to create a new profile though and in the profile where the resume was everything worked fine ACCEPT !!!


Sorry, you have not got the job at MS because you can't spell EXCEPT

Regards
BillG

daddycool
Jul 21, 2006, 07:03 AM
Kentsfield? Sounds like a Simpsons parody name (and a good one) or a cigarette. Where/how did they think this up?

Orange-DE
Jul 21, 2006, 07:10 AM
Will it be possible to plug-in any PC graphics cards into an Intel Mac Pro?
Since Apple uses Intel´s chipsets and bords, including PCI-bound hardware devices such as ethernet and sound, controllers and so on - i don´t belive that intel changed the specifications of f.e. an 945i-chipset just for burning in firmwares instead of BIOSes!?!

Apple - bring the iHome and make us happy :)

cyberbeats
Jul 21, 2006, 07:11 AM
hi,
i've just sold my dual g5 because
i plan to buy a new macpro in august.
But seems that it will be already obsolate after 3 months.
Please can you tell me if the socket of woodcrest
will make the macpro upgradable one day,
or these new type of processors need differet socket?
Thanks.

Orange-DE
Jul 21, 2006, 07:15 AM
hi,
i've just sold my dual g5 because
i plan to buy a new macpro in august.
But seems that it will be already obsolate after 3 months.
Please can you tell me if the socket of woodcrest
will make the macpro upgradable one day,
or these new type of processors need differet socket?
Thanks.

I am shure you will be able to upgrade for a minimum of two years to come.
Because it´s an professional system and it´s based on intel´s long-time-support for servers etc.

k?

BornAgainMac
Jul 21, 2006, 07:19 AM
Now you just need to decide what color your want your new computer... (again)

Mac Kiwi
Jul 21, 2006, 07:24 AM
I've already got one. A SuperMac C500 to be precise! (Well, actually it's an Apus 2000, but in the US it was the C500).

SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/

:)



Ok SuperMac is definitely out then :)

Orange-DE
Jul 21, 2006, 07:30 AM
Now you just need to decide what color your want your new computer... (again)

Think pINK

NoNameBrand
Jul 21, 2006, 08:26 AM
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.

Now you're not thinking like a competitive company that needs to continue to make money.

Sun is on the ropes and Apple now has a chance to soar in and take a lot of business from them.


How does Apple releasing an eight-way workstation prevent them from competing with Sun in the server market, again? I must have missed that part.

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 09:53 AM
Before thinking about Apple competing with Sun in the Server market check out Sun's recently released x86 server products. They are very impressive and much higher up the "food chain" than what Apple is expected to compete in.

Sun Fire X4600 (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4600/). It has 8 sockets with support for up to 16 Opteron cores today and 32 Q1 next year. It is designed to be easily upgradable - processors are on separate cards connected via HyperTransport backplane.

Sun Fire X4500 (http://www.sun.com/servers/x64/x4500/). A "hybrid" server (code name "Thumper") with 28TB directly attached storage and 2 Opteron Sockets (4 cores) in a 4U packaging. The storage density is at least 4 times traditional NAS/SAN - you can have a quarter Peta Byte on a 42U rack!!

Sun Blade 8000 (http://www.sun.com/servers/blades/8000/). A 19U chassis supporting 10 8-way (now, 16-way Q1 2007) blades. This platform will also support Sun's Ultrasparc T1 (8 cores, 32 threads) and the upcoming UltraSparc T2 (8 cores, 64 threads) processors.

shamino
Jul 21, 2006, 10:07 AM
With all these new technologies with 4, 8 and eventually 24-core capacities (some time in the not too distant future) all running at 64-bit, we musn't forget that software also has tobe developed for these machienes in order to get the most out of the hardware. At the moment we aren't even maximising core-duo, let alone a quad core and all the rest!!!!
It really depends on your application.

On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.

If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.

With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use.

If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.

Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.

I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)

I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.

shamino
Jul 21, 2006, 10:09 AM
Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already.
At the very least, Spotlight indexing won't kill the performance of my foreground app :cool:

adamfilip
Jul 21, 2006, 10:13 AM
Now you just need to decide what color your want your new computer... (again)

I want Apple to take the current PowerMac G5 Case
make it 25% shorter, add a second optical drive
and two more Internal hard drives
add some External Sata ports. and 4 more USB2 ports
1 more front usb2 port
make the mic port powered

and then make the case black anodized aluminum. and have the apple logo on the sides backlit just like the notebooks

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 10:20 AM
If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.

I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.

Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 11:43 AM
hi,
i've just sold my dual g5 because
i plan to buy a new macpro in august.
But seems that it will be already obsolate after 3 months.
Please can you tell me if the socket of woodcrest
will make the macpro upgradable one day,
or these new type of processors need differet socket?
Thanks.Woodcrest socket may accept a cloverton Quad Core twice. But we just don't know yet because silicon may need to be added to manage 8 cores instead of 4.

Your best value would to buy a refurb Quad G5 for $2799. How much did you get for what model?

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.

On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.

If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.

With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...

Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.

I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)

I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.

You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.

This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.

So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.

I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.

I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.

yac_moda
Jul 21, 2006, 12:39 PM
Get with the program you guys ...

... start think the way APPLE think :eek:


Apple will NOT release such a HIGH END MACchine without spotlighting a use :eek: :eek:

Such a most excellent MACchine would be released with Bluray and the computing power would be used to burn to ALL THAT SPACE in human as opposed to GEOLOGICAL time spans :eek: :eek: :eek:

shamino
Jul 21, 2006, 12:45 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.

You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.

OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 12:51 PM
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.

OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.I may not be typical today, but in future a majority of Western Pop-Culture type users - not the world - will want to be able to archive HDTV to mp4 off their original recordings in a flash and only more cores will solve that problem.

And I never said anything about needing ten thousand cores etc. I think it is quite realistic for the majority of Western Pop-Culture Type Nationalities ONLY users to need 16 or more cores by 2010. Thank God we will begin to get them by 2008. :eek:

I don't begin to pretend we are discussing the world's users' needs here. Only Westerners with heavy Pop-Culture Multimedia type usage - Video iPods HDTV Sat Radio etc.

I believe that there is a fundamental lack of imagination on this front - because it hasn't been possible to date, therefore it isn't in the consciousness of many users yet as a possibility they would think of doing. It's not so much that I'm atypical as it is I am already thinking outside the box of how we've been doing stuff to date. Soon many will begin to see the new ways we will be able to get stuff done faster thanks to more Cores inside.

shamino
Jul 21, 2006, 12:52 PM
i've just sold my dual g5 because
i plan to buy a new macpro in august.
You sold your existing computer now, so you can replace it with a system that has not yet been announced?

And what if this system doesn't ship until October or November?

I hope that G5 wasn't your only computer.
But seems that it will be already obsolate after 3 months.
"Obsolete"? Because it isn't the fastest computer in the world?

I hate to break it to you, but if you define "obsolete" as "less powerful than the best in the world", then you're going to be buying new computers every three months for the rest of your life.

So Intel is coming out with faster chips on a rapid schedule, so what? Even if Apple releases updated systems every three months, so what? Does this somehow mean the computer you buy today will suddenly become incapable of running the applications you want to run?

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 01:31 PM
I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.


Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 01:39 PM
Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?Under $4k whatever state of the offerings are. I am not writing about wanting to pay for expensive servers etc. I am only referring to Mac Pro top of the lines. So I am looking foward to the 8 core starter kit this Winter. :D

Mine is not RAM intensive work. I have 6GB of ram now and it is more than enough. I also have several Terabytes of HDs already. 400GB HDs are down to $100 now so Storage is pretty cheap with each Terabyte down to $250 or 25¢ a GB.

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 01:47 PM
Under $4k whatever state of the offerings are. I am not writing about wanting to pay for expensive servers etc. I am only referring to Mac Pro top of the lines. So I am looking foward to the 8 core starter kit this Winter. :D

Mine is not RAM intensive work. I have 6GB of ram now and it is more than enough. I also have several Terabytes of HDs already. 400GB HDs are down to $100 now so Storage is pretty cheap.

Yes, with the possibility of a Mac Pro with 8 core on the horizon, it makes sense to skip the 4 core altogether. Or, start with lower end of 4 cores (say 2GHz) and then, if necessary and possible, upgrade it to 8 cores. I wonder if waiting for 8 cores is going to be a common sentiment. In that case, it would make sense for Apple to offer an upgrade path to it.

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 01:51 PM
Yes, with the possibility of a Mac Pro with 8 core on the horizon, it makes sense to skip the 4 core altogether. Or, start with lower end of 4 cores (say 2GHz) and then, if necessary and possible, upgrade it to 8 cores. I wonder if waiting for 8 cores is going to be a common sentiment. In that case, it would make sense for Apple to offer an upgrade path to it.There may be unknown variables supporting 8 cores from 4 such that I would not want to take that path. I would rather have 8 cores on a new motherboard with faster ram etc supported to get the most out of all of them at newer faster speeds.

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 02:04 PM
There may be unknown variables supporting 8 cores from 4 such that I would not want to take that path. I would rather have 8 cores on a new motherboard with faster ram etc supported to get the most out of all of them at newer faster speeds.

Intel's Bensley platform was designed for Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown families of Xeon processors. So the system components like mobo and memory will remain the same. Any changes will be incremental.

Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.

I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :D

cgc
Jul 21, 2006, 03:20 PM
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.

OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.
It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...:confused:

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 04:00 PM
It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...:confused:I'm not ripping DVDs. I'm ripping DVD IMAGES made with Toast from EyeTV2 Digital SD and HD recordings to archive off air broadcast recordings for my personal use only. Nothing to do with seeding anything to anyone. Need more cores to encode and rip simultaneously instead of sequentially. Much faster to do a bunch of one or two shows simultaneously than larger sets sequentially. More cores will also allow for faster compacting of the edited shows - IE removal of ads - in the first place.

Macnoviz
Jul 21, 2006, 04:20 PM
I'm not ripping DVDs. I'm ripping DVD IMAGES made with Toast from EyeTV2 Digital SD and HD recordings to archive off air broadcast recordings for my personal use only. Nothing to do with seeding anything to anyone. Need more cores to encode and rip simultaneously instead of sequentially. Much faster to do a bunch of one or two shows simultaneously than larger sets sequentially. More cores will also allow for faster compacting of the edited shows - IE removal of ads - in the first place.

Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 04:37 PM
Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 04:42 PM
Intel's Bensley platform was designed for Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown families of Xeon processors. So the system components like mobo and memory will remain the same. Any changes will be incremental.

Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... :D :DI don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 04:45 PM
I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.

One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.;)

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 04:48 PM
Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?

TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1)

THX1139
Jul 21, 2006, 04:56 PM
I've already got one. A SuperMac C500 to be precise! (Well, actually it's an Apus 2000, but in the US it was the C500).

SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/

:)

I'm just curious about your post. Why would anyone in their right mind maintain a website for a product/company that no longer exists? Seems like a big waste of time and resources. I can see doing something similar for archival purposes, but that link leads to a complete website that has the appearance that it is still active.

Some peoples choice of hobby boggles my mind.

Multimedia
Jul 21, 2006, 04:58 PM
One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.;)Problem with that arrangement is that you are limited to the use of two cores for any one appication and there are already several I use that can use up to almost 3 at once. It would also get very confusing which mini you are on at a given moment.

Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. :D

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 05:00 PM
One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.;)

Sorry, I just noticed that the $599 models doesn't have a SuperDrive. BUT going to the $799 model may still make a lot of sense for you. All the work units are independent of each other and hence easily distributable to the Minis form your existing PowerMac. Hey, you could even figure out how to use XGrid for this. I would love to hear from you if you research this further.

mwswami
Jul 21, 2006, 05:08 PM
Problem with that arrangement is that you are limited to the use of two cores for any one appication and there are already several I use that can use up to almost 3 at once. It would also get very confusing which mini you are on at a given moment.

Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. :D

Got it. Thanks!

If you haven't seen it before, I found this (http://www.macminicolo.net/) very interesting.

Erasmus
Jul 21, 2006, 11:55 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.

BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?

I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.

When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.

So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.

Macnoviz
Jul 22, 2006, 03:03 AM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.

BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?

I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.

When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.

So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.

I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.

composer11
Jul 22, 2006, 03:50 AM
Got it. Thanks!

If you haven't seen it before, I found this (http://www.macminicolo.net/) very interesting.


Cool! LOL! :-)

Anyway, wondering if Apple will cut the prices the way the PC market dictates?? Anyone have any ideas? Apple is going to have to get used to ramping and changing the cores all the time, this is NOT IBM PPC, and Intel, AMD etc, release revesions of chips all the time, several times a year. In addition, one of the cool things about this is that the new desktops should allow you to buy the low end system and purchase a CPU and plop it in yourself, saving a bundle, unless of course they, being apple, stay withing market price of CPU's.

A good place to check current prices is..

www.pricewatch.com

Now if they where to solder them on, then I would fume and support the OSX86.org:D But seriously, from what I thought I read not to long ago, Apple is no longer "whoring" their RAM prices and are starting to reflect the "real" street prices of DDR.

IMHO, Apple is going to have to stay competitive with real street prices on their systems (CPU, Motherboard, RAM pricing) and the newer 2 Duo and Memron, Quads, etc are much lower than what IBM was charging them.

For the laptop segment, by the Holiday's, the MacBooks should be equal to the QUAD G5 in power, with the MBP 8 cores (2x4), and desktops in all various ranges.....especially with UB programs, all the way up to 4x4.

Now, if we could only get decent mic preamps, and everything wireless, guitar, etc, everything would be perfect.

Am still awaiting the device you place on your head and think about a song, idea, cartoon, and poof, it's done! LOL!!!

Erasmus
Jul 22, 2006, 03:59 AM
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.

:D You never know, you never know.
Ye of little faith in technology!
Never mind.

I think its more along the lines of whether the public will let it happen without turning it into a big moral/ethical/religeous dilemma.
Well, anyway, I am going to stop, because this is way, way, way off topic. I shouldn't have brought it up to begin with.

mwswami
Jul 22, 2006, 09:53 AM
(Cloverton or Clovertown?)


It's Clovertown.

Here is a link to description of the Intel Core Microarchitecture (http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/) on Intel.com. Search for Clovertown.

shamino
Jul 22, 2006, 12:06 PM
I'm just curious about your post. Why would anyone in their right mind maintain a website for a product/company that no longer exists? Seems like a big waste of time and resources. I can see doing something similar for archival purposes, but that link leads to a complete website that has the appearance that it is still active.
I can think of several reasons. To sell service and support to users that have no other source, and has a hobby are the biggest two that come to mind.

You might be surprised to learn that there are still a lot of Amiga (http://www.amiga.com/)-enthusiast web sites, and even one where the owners are making new hardware (http://www.a2retrosystems.com/index.htm) for Apple-II series computers. (And there appears to be a surprisingly strong demand for Apple II Ethernet cards!)

shamino
Jul 22, 2006, 12:18 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.

It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.

There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.

With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".

When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.

I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?

shamino
Jul 22, 2006, 12:23 PM
Anyway, wondering if Apple will cut the prices the way the PC market dictates?? Anyone have any ideas?
Apple's business model is based on high margins. I don't think this is going to change.

My guess is that they will release upgraded systems more often, and discontinue the slower systems more often, and leave the prices approximately unchanged.

Don't expect dirt-cheap Macs (aside from closeout sales to dump old stock, of course), but do expect more powerful systems to come out much more rapidly.
Now, if we could only get decent mic preamps, and everything wireless, guitar, etc, everything would be perfect.
You can get tons of great audio gear. But you're going to have to start shopping in music stores and not in computer stores. And be prepared to pay for the quality you get.

mwswami
Jul 22, 2006, 01:12 PM
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.

Here it is straight from the horse's mouth.

Coming Sooner Than You Think: Intel Next-Generation Enterprise Platforms (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060307corp_a.htm)

INTEL DEVELOPER FORUM, San Francisco, March 7, 2006 – Pat Gelsinger, Intel senior vice president ...

"Further reinforcing Intel’s near–term portfolio of leading multicore products, Gelsinger also gave developers their first public view of a running quad–core processor, codenamed Clovertown, for dual–processor servers. Clovertown is socket–compatible with the Bensley platform and is slated to ship in early 2007. It will deliver increased processing capacity and is well–suited for multi–threaded applications, such as those used in databases, financial services and supply–chain management. Additionally, the company also plans to ship a quad–core processor –– codenamed Kentsfield –– for high–end desktop PCs in early 2007."

mwswami
Jul 23, 2006, 01:03 AM
Given the change in Clovertown schedule, I expect that at WWDC Apple will release 2 "lower end" Mac Pro configurations both with dual Woodcrests. The higher end configuration with two Clovertowns will ship early Q1 (maybe around MW'07).

I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.

Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.

THX1139
Jul 23, 2006, 02:29 AM
For the laptop segment, by the Holiday's, the MacBooks should be equal to the QUAD G5 in power, with the MBP 8 cores (2x4), and desktops in all various ranges.....especially with UB programs, all the way up to 4x4.

You mean the Holiday season of 2007? You must believe in Santa Claus. You aren't going to be seeing Macbooks equaling the speed of the G5 Quad any time soon. Quad in a Macbook by December? No way. You won't see it in a MBP either...

composer11
Jul 23, 2006, 05:00 AM
Apple's business model is based on high margins. I don't think this is going to change.

My guess is that they will release upgraded systems more often, and discontinue the slower systems more often, and leave the prices approximately unchanged.

Don't expect dirt-cheap Macs (aside from closeout sales to dump old stock, of course), but do expect more powerful systems to come out much more rapidly.
You can get tons of great audio gear. But you're going to have to start shopping in music stores and not in computer stores. And be prepared to pay for the quality you get.


Yeah, I know, that's probably what they will do forcing you to pay top dollar.
Hope the Mac Books get dedicated GPU, intel is rumored to be working on something that should be on par with ATI/Nvida to be ready for Vista, meanwhile AMD is scooping up ATI.

Regarding music gear, I have a Mackie 400F which sounds nice, a tube pre amp and Rhodes NT2A, I was speaking of wireless. Everything wireless. LOL!

Erasmus
Jul 23, 2006, 05:09 AM
(Lots of Stuff...)

Well I bet that took a while...

Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?

Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.

No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:

Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!

BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?

Multimedia
Jul 23, 2006, 03:14 PM
Given the change in Clovertown schedule, I expect that at WWDC Apple will release 2 "lower end" Mac Pro configurations both with dual Woodcrests. The higher end configuration with two Clovertowns will ship early Q1 (maybe around MW'07).

I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.

Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.

There are some who may never find a need for more than two cores. But therein creeps back the need for a cheaper dual core tower line in the same price range as the iMacs. Seems inevitable doesn't it? Expand the Tower line down to $999 and let it go all the way up to $3.5k. Six models instead of only 3 expensive ones.

January - March 2007

..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.

I found that word "OctoPod" in my Tiger's Oxford Dictionary. It's a REAL word.

When they get to 8 via a Yorkfield then the whole line can be based on the less expensive desktop family motherboards and chipsets except the extreeme top where pairs of Harpertown will make 16 etc etc.

You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.

mwswami
Jul 23, 2006, 04:28 PM
Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
...
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.

Don't worry I won't flame you. You may turn out to be right. Only two weeks to go ...

THX1139
Jul 23, 2006, 05:03 PM
..$999 - Dual 2 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.3 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.6 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.3 GHz Two Woodies later One Kentsfield


This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.


At those prices, sign me up for a Quad 2.3!!!! I'll buy that along with a newly designed 23" ACD for $699. :D

Multimedia
Jul 23, 2006, 05:14 PM
January - March 2007

..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.

This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.At those prices, sign me up for a Quad 2.3!!!! I'll buy that along with a newly designed 23" ACD for $699. :DYeah I can see that this is a January 2007 price list not this year. Sorry for the time warped confusion. :eek:

You can already buy a 24" Dell 1920 x 1200 display for only $799 from a dealer who buys and sells them in bulk on eBay.A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.

Even a cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion (http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1page2.aspx?br=6&c=us&cs=04&fm=11456&kc=6W463&l=en&s=bsd) with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.

Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.Yes I realize that. I forgot to put the time frame on the original list. I agree with your assessment of the imminent offerings this summer.

mwswami
Jul 23, 2006, 05:22 PM
At those prices, sign me up for a Quad 2.3!!!! I'll buy that along with a newly designed 23" ACD for $699. :D

A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.

Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion (http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1page2.aspx?br=6&c=us&cs=04&fm=11456&kc=6W463&l=en&s=bsd) with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.

Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.

Cowinacape
Jul 23, 2006, 05:32 PM
Multimedia, I'd love to see a line up like that released, dual 2.3 here I come :D here's hoping that your predictions are close to the mark!

gnasher729
Jul 23, 2006, 06:41 PM
A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.

Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion (http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1page2.aspx?br=6&c=us&cs=04&fm=11456&kc=6W463&l=en&s=bsd) with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.

Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.

That's what Kentsfield is for. It is a single quad core chip, which is expected to fit into the cheaper motherboards for Conroe instead of the much more expensive motherboards for Woodcrest.

Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.

mwswami
Jul 23, 2006, 07:12 PM
That's what Kentsfield is for. It is a single quad core chip, which is expected to fit into the cheaper motherboards for Conroe instead of the much more expensive motherboards for Woodcrest.

Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.

So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?

I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.

So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.

Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.

Multimedia
Jul 23, 2006, 08:28 PM
So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?

I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.Given the above reasons, I expect it will be the former. The whole line will be Conroe based EXCEPT for the ONE top model which will be based on a Woodcrest MoBo etc so each time the top doubles it's core count from 4 to 8 then 16, the lower models double theirs from 2 to 4 then 8, all in less than a year from now.Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.I think it's safe to say we may witness the fastest acceleration in affordable computing power in the history of personal computing during this next year.

mwswami
Jul 24, 2006, 04:39 PM
Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.

Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.

I don't believe Intel can go to 8 core chip before going to a true 4 core instead of 2 dual cores on the MCM. That may have to wait till the process moves to 45nm and they have the Common System Interface worked out i.e. towards the end of 2007. This is all an educated guess on my part ... nothing concrete.

shamino
Jul 24, 2006, 05:40 PM
Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.
I don't know. Almost-two-years seems like enough time :p

("coming in the spring" would mean spring-2007, since we're in summer 2006 right now. "next spring" means the one after that - spring-2008.)

Multimedia
Jul 24, 2006, 05:54 PM
So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?

I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.

So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.

Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.

I don't believe Intel can go to 8 core chip before going to a true 4 core instead of 2 dual cores on the MCM. That may have to wait till the process moves to 45nm and they have the Common System Interface worked out i.e. towards the end of 2007. This is all an educated guess on my part ... nothing concrete.It's in the roadmap listed to follow Kentsfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture).

"Yorkfield, eight-core MCM, 45 nm, 12 MiB L2, successor to Kentsfield"

Since Kentsfield is due Fall 2006, I IMAGINED Yorkfield would be ready to roll by Spring 2007. Maybe later? OK maybe later. I have no idea. Just feeling optimistic about Intel's accelerated rollout luck lately.

Well at the very least we will have pairs of Tigertons providing 8 cores by Spring 2007 as a stop-gap on a Woodcrest motherboard. Won't we?

My point wasn't so much exactly when Yorkfield will arrive as much as it was that Kentsfield is not THE END of increasingly more cores on the Conroe front as you had stated as fact.

Anyone else having confusion with all these -field, -town and -ton processor name suffixes? Aparently even the moderators here are. They have mispelled Clovertown in the original news story and post as well as on this forum's web page titles.