PDA

View Full Version : Power Efficient Quad-Core Xeons




MacRumors
Mar 12, 2007, 09:48 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Macworld notes (http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/12/xeon/index.php) that Intel is officially announcing the availability of more power-efficient quad-core Xeon processors to be available today.

The new Xeon L5320 and L5310 processors consume only 12.5 watts of electricity per core, using 35-60% less power than the existing quad-core Xeons.

The L5320 operates at 1.86 GHz and the L5310 at 1.60 GHz. They both feature 8M bytes of on-die cache for faster memory data communication. In quantities of 1,000 units, the L5320 is priced at US$519 and the L5310 at $455.

No word on whether or not Apple is planning on using the newest Quad-core processors in upcoming Macs, despite persistent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/10/25/8-core-mac-pro-with-clovertown-in-november/) of Apple introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro. These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

For readers interested in the top end of performance, Intel revealed last week (http://news.com.com/Intel%2C+AMD+vie+for+server+attention/2100-1006_3-6163315.html) that later this year, they will be releasing a higher end 3.0GHz version of its Quad-core Xeon for customers who aren't concerned with power consumption.

The current 2.66GHz Quad-cores or these upcoming high end chips appear to be the most likely candidates for future 8-Core Mac Pro models, as power consumption is not a major consideration for Apple's high end desktop machines.



HelloKitty
Mar 12, 2007, 09:54 AM
Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

spicyapple
Mar 12, 2007, 09:57 AM
I wet my Hoff™ pants. :) No seriously, this is extremely good news. It all fits in my master plan, muhahah.

Chaszmyr
Mar 12, 2007, 09:57 AM
Maybe we'll see Apple's Online Store update tomorrow... It sure seems like it's been a while.

arn
Mar 12, 2007, 09:59 AM
I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

Maybe the 3.0GHz version when it comes out later this year

arn

Chaszmyr
Mar 12, 2007, 10:05 AM
I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

Maybe the 3.0GHz version when it comes out later this year

arn

It is true 1.86ghz would be quite low relative to what is currently available in the Mac Pros. Do you think there would be any higher probability of a quad core iMac with these low power chips?

bigandy
Mar 12, 2007, 10:06 AM
Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me :D

Teh Don Ditty
Mar 12, 2007, 10:06 AM
Mmmmmmm 8 core goodness!

Power efficient = goodness too!

Perhaps a power efficient chip could be used in a Mini Mac Pro.... Hey! I can dream!

eXan
Mar 12, 2007, 10:07 AM
The new Quad iMac? :D :cool:

Or is there a non-Xeon equevalent of 4-core CPU?

DrGruv1
Mar 12, 2007, 10:09 AM
It is true 1.86ghz would be quite low relative to what is currently available in the Mac Pros. Do you think there would be any higher probability of a quad core iMac with these low power chips?


my thought also...

wouldn't have to wait till the 4 core version in 2008 - could do it now if they wanted to change the imac to the macpro motherboard.....

Just A Guess...

iJawn108
Mar 12, 2007, 10:11 AM
mac cube pro ;)

Rocketman
Mar 12, 2007, 10:13 AM
Before Multimedia chimes in, has the Stokley-Seaburg chipset been released yet?

Rocketman

pgwalsh
Mar 12, 2007, 10:13 AM
I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

Maybe the 3.0GHz version when it comes out later this year

arn
Right, I agree. Hopefully they can work some of that power efficiency into the 3.0 Ghz.

This is starting to look like a hiccup in Moore's law or is that officially dead?

dude-x
Mar 12, 2007, 10:21 AM
The new Quad iMac? :D :cool:

Or is there a non-Xeon equevalent of 4-core CPU?

The non Xeon 4 core is called codenmame Kentsfield, and it's sold under the name Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Intel Core 2 Extreme XQ6800 for the faster version. This is the desktop version of the chip.

I hope that by the time the Mac Pro gets a refresh, that they will introduce low power 2.66 GHz quad cores. 2.66 Ghz is the sweet spot for high performance and reasonable cost.

On February 27th, Yahoo News had a story about Intel's plans. Intel said that they would release the Seaburg chipset in the second half of '07. That means we can expect the new Mac Pros in June. :( I am hoping that Apple's special relationship with Intel will mean an earlier release date.

the vj
Mar 12, 2007, 10:21 AM
I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

Teh Don Ditty
Mar 12, 2007, 10:24 AM
I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

That my friend is business. Intel & AMD or in constant competition with each other, which brings about innovation.

I understand you feel that your MacBook is outdated already but that's the computer industry. Now that Apple ditched IBM and PPC, it is subject to the same trends as regular PCs.

4np
Mar 12, 2007, 10:26 AM
sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me :D

Just what I was hoping for when I read this ;) According to eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2102526,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594) these quad-core processor consume 50-Watt; what do the current Dual Core (merom) processors in the MacBook (Pro) lines consume? Also, note my post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=286890) about recently rumored intel price drops!


Intel Unveils 50-Watt Quad-core Chips

Once again, Intel is ramping up its quad-core lineup.

This time, the world's largest chip maker is scheduled to unveil a pair of Xeon quad-core processors with 50-watt thermal envelopes. This represents a 60 percent decrease in power use from early chips that had 120 thermal watt envelopes and a 38 percent drop from 80-watt models.

The Santa Clara, Calif., company will officially unveil these two new "Clovertown" quad-core processors on March 12.

source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2102526,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

QCassidy352
Mar 12, 2007, 10:29 AM
I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

macbook pro: 14 months, 2 versions
macbook: 10 months, 2 versions
mac pro: 6 months, 1 version
imac: 14 months, 2 versions
mac mini: 13 months, 2 versions

As far as intel goes in that time span, we've seen core duo, core 2 duo, dual core xeon, and quad core xeon.

Every other week...? :confused:

andiwm2003
Mar 12, 2007, 10:30 AM
I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

a MBP is faster than a G5 quad? hard to believe! what app did you test?

aside of that i hope that intel releases new chips frequently and by that bring about innovation. i would like to see updates to the macs every 3-4 month insted of every 6-8 month. this would also drive down the insanely high prices for used macs.

brianus
Mar 12, 2007, 10:37 AM
That my friend is business. Intel & AMD or in constant competition with each other, which brings about innovation.

I understand you feel that your MacBook is outdated already but that's the computer industry. Now that Apple ditched IBM and PPC, it is subject to the same trends as regular PCs.

It's such a weird sentiment, wanting things to slow down. I 'switched' in 2005, after many many months of wanting to switch but having no idea when the G5's would be replaced, and having no news out of IBM or Apple on that score. The announce of the Intel switch and the inevitability of rapid, predictable product updates that would bring was an enormous breath of fresh air -- it also prevented me from buying an expensive G5 that would be wayyyy obsolete compared to the Intels (a cheap Mini was fine as long as there were potentially Windows-compatible Intel Macs in the near future). An extremely sluggish, always incremental update schedule may give you more peace of mind in your purchase, and it may help Apple's bottom line by convincing people there's no sense waiting to buy, but ultimately stagnation is not good for the consumer. Just because a product hasn't been updated doesn't mean it's up to date.

And anyway, there have been only two updates since the Intel switch, Core and Core 2; and Core was always understood to be a stopgap, intermediate step. The updates to the processors and motherboards coming this year are of an incremental nature; the next real "G4->G5"-comparable update is in 2008, with Nehalem (or "Core 3", as I'd imagine it will be called).

Teh Don Ditty
Mar 12, 2007, 10:41 AM
<snip, post too long to requote>

Did you mean to quote me, or the poster that I quoted? I wouldn't want Intel (or AMD for that matter) to slow down anything.

zero2dash
Mar 12, 2007, 10:43 AM
These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

I'd rather have the faster processors. ;)
Suck up the juice! Greenhouse gases! Kill the ozone! There's deadlines to be met! :D j/k

pgwalsh
Mar 12, 2007, 10:48 AM
I'd rather have the faster processors. ;)
Suck up the juice! Greenhouse gases! Kill the ozone! There's deadlines to be met! :D j/kLovely. :rolleyes:

Bobthemonkey
Mar 12, 2007, 10:48 AM
These low power chips are normally reserved for Blade centres where HVAC is a primary concern. Although unlikly,and updated version of the xserve cluster node running 4 or these but only 1 HDD would be quite fancy for certain applications where speed is less important than processor cycles such as some science programs.

Bear
Mar 12, 2007, 10:51 AM
The new Xeon L5320 and L5310 processors consume only 12.5 watts of electricity per core, using 35-60% less power than the existing quad-core Xeons.
...
These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.Did you notice that the relative power usage is similar to relative clock speed. In other words these "power efficient" processors are just marketing hype. Making something close in speed to the Clovertown processors while using noticeably less power would be "power efficient".

I'd rather have a dual 3.0GHz over a Quad 1.6 GHZ since not all applications scale well over multiple processors. So how much power does the dual core 3.0 GHz use in comparison to the Quad core 1.6 GHz? This would be a much closer comparison.

guzhogi
Mar 12, 2007, 10:52 AM
I could also see these in an iMac and possibly the Macbook Pro. Anyone know how the power requirements compare to the C2D chips in the MBP and these new procs?

The only thing I worry about is not very much software is optimized for multi-core procs, much less 4 of them. Now that it looks like almost every computer out there has multi-cores, software makers need to start writing software to take advantage of them.

frank781
Mar 12, 2007, 10:57 AM
sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me :D

I agree with you Bigandy, the potential here is for the Macbook Pro. This would create a nice delineation of product lines between it and the macbook. There are rumours that macbook might get a dedicated graphics card in the next revision, so this might keep the Macbook Pro commercially viable.

Rocketman
Mar 12, 2007, 10:59 AM
Right, I agree. Hopefully they can work some of that power efficiency into the 3.0 Ghz.

This is starting to look like a hiccup in Moore's law or is that officially dead?

The recent process improvement Intel implemented extended it for one more generation. To some degree it is aleady being achieved by core number, not sheer technology improvement. We are nearing the limit of physics with the currenty silicon technology. Other technologies "promise" to keep Moore's law alive into perhaps the next decade or so, but nothing "real" yet.

What I find amazing is how long it has remained valid ALREADY.

Rocketman

MongoTheGeek
Mar 12, 2007, 11:12 AM
sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me :D

My thoughts exactly.

Its about time for me to upgrade too...

andiwm2003
Mar 12, 2007, 11:17 AM
I agree with you Bigandy, the potential here is for the Macbook Pro. This would create a nice delineation of product lines between it and the macbook. There are rumours that macbook might get a dedicated graphics card in the next revision, so this might keep the Macbook Pro commercially viable.

that would mean a 1.86GHz quadcore replaces a 2.33GHz dual core? seems unlikely to me because the quad core would need as much power as the dual core and would not be that much faster. and it would be a marketing problem to sell a lower clockspeed.

more likely to me is that they use higher clockspeed C2D and santa rosa chipsets to separate the lines for the near term future.

ChrisA
Mar 12, 2007, 11:27 AM
I think this new processor from Intel was designed to compete with this from Sun:: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/ But even with Intel's new chip Sun is still winning the the low power race

Very few Mac users would want these kinds of processors. The slower quad core chips, like the Sun T1 are perfect for building a high end web server or possibly a large DBMS server For desktop use the current faster dual core chips are faster for most uses. Web servers tend to run many copies of the web server process (one per client) many DBMSes work the same way each of these can run hundreds of processes and the 32 thread per chip T1 is perfect for this.

The one case were these chips would be better on a Mac is for people who start a large batch job (to trans-code media files) and then walk away. Very few mac users do this. Most Macs are used interactively.

pacohaas
Mar 12, 2007, 11:43 AM
yeah, xserve update!

ChrisA
Mar 12, 2007, 11:57 AM
I could also see these in an iMac and possibly the Macbook Pro. Anyone know how the power requirements compare to the C2D chips in the MBP and these new procs?

The only thing I worry about is not very much software is optimized for multi-core procs, much less 4 of them. Now that it looks like almost every computer out there has multi-cores, software makers need to start writing software to take advantage of them.

Computers don't run just one program. They run an OS that manages many of them. Updating the screen, reading data from the Internet and flushing data to disks, streaming data to the new Apple TV. All this goes on at once. The OS manages it well.

Also, applications that follows Apple's guidlines call a set of core services for do things with audio, video or to do a search or just about anyhting. These core services are written to take advantage of the hardware. Software not taking advantage of multiple processors is a myth. You can see for yourself just by watching Activity Monitor

There have been computers with multiple core now for what? 35 years? Maybe longer. They have been common for maybe 20 years and just now becoming common on consumer desktop systems. The software and theory on how to use mutliple processers is quite mature, Mac OS is really just BSD UNIX and BSD has been handling multiple processors for decades.

I remember using a BSD derived system that have two CPUs and right next to my big 20" CRT was my little "512K Mac" The Mac didn't even have a hard drive, just a floppy and a half megabyte of RAM. So I hade one system that was very much like Mac OS X for "real work" and the Mac for word processing and diagrams. I though even then that some one should mix these two systems together. Finally someonme at Next Inc. did. Point is that the software to use these multi-cores is quite mature.

EagerDragon
Mar 12, 2007, 12:07 PM
These chips have a much lower speed than the current dual Xeon, not many programs can take over all 8 cores (today), anyway.

I bet they (APPL) will wait for equal or faster raw GhZ, but it could go into something else (single CPU box) like the iMac with one quad CPU at 1.6 or 1.8 Ghz, the heat is about right.

:rolleyes:

Multimedia
Mar 12, 2007, 12:28 PM
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

Bring on the Mac Pro 8 Cores Apple!http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/rotfl.gif

SiliconAddict
Mar 12, 2007, 12:37 PM
What? No more water cooled Macs? DANG! http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/rotfl.gif

Woodcrest64
Mar 12, 2007, 12:38 PM
Well not right away but I can certainly see MacBook Pros with Quad cores in the near future. :D

twoodcc
Mar 12, 2007, 12:41 PM
good news! bring on the 8-cores!

sdhollman
Mar 12, 2007, 01:09 PM
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

Bring on the Mac Pro 8 Cores Apple!http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/rotfl.gif

Multimedia Aren't you going to say something about Stokley-Seaburg? :)

siurpeeman
Mar 12, 2007, 01:24 PM
i doubt they'd put a xeon chip in an imac or a mac mini. but when i read this, i thought about last week's thread about whether we'd buy a midrange tower. personally, i doubt these chips will make it into any mac, but it would be interesting to see.

tortoise
Mar 12, 2007, 01:32 PM
I think this new processor from Intel was designed to compete with this from Sun:: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/ But even with Intel's new chip Sun is still winning the the low power race

Very few Mac users would want these kinds of processors. The slower quad core chips, like the Sun T1 are perfect for building a high end web server or possibly a large DBMS server For desktop use the current faster dual core chips are faster for most uses. Web servers tend to run many copies of the web server process (one per client) many DBMSes work the same way each of these can run hundreds of processes and the 32 thread per chip T1 is perfect for this.


These processors are quite slow such that the performance per watt isn't really there for most things. If you benchmark it for databases and other apps that can exercise all 32 threads/8 cores you will find that a conventional 2x2 Intel or AMD rig will run rings around it such that it is not obvious why you would want to use it. Even when running 100 threads the Intel and AMD cores are capable of getting a lot more work done faster with no hardware thread support.

Clive At Five
Mar 12, 2007, 02:17 PM
Did you notice that the relative power usage is similar to relative clock speed. In other words these "power efficient" processors are just marketing hype. Making something close in speed to the Clovertown processors while using noticeably less power would be "power efficient".

I was wondering if anyone else caught that. In fact, "efficient" is the wrong word to use altogether. If performance per watt is equal, there is nothing more efficient about the lower clock speeds

In fact, as someone else noted, since not all software is multi-threaded, the 3GHz actually has a distinct advantage of being able to do more. So in reality, the smaller clock-speeds might actually be less efficient.

Chew on that one...

-Clive

letaalio
Mar 12, 2007, 02:27 PM
Not in a Macbook Pro, current Merom processors (C2D) use around 34 or 35w, this one uses 50w. So it would consume more power and would drain the battery much faster.

I'm not saying it's going to be slower, but there's not much to market for Apple to the average-joe as the GHz's are lower and the battery life also is going to be less.

Clive At Five
Mar 12, 2007, 02:35 PM
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

No no no... don't mess with the mini. Keep it as a cheap, small, switcher machine (or media hub for some). Any means to bring down the price and still keep it a quality computer would be an investment well-made.

I know Apple has historically been very hesitant about it, but a mini-tower would make a lot of people very happy (and shut a bunch of others up, finally). Let's hope for that.

-Clive

BenRoethig
Mar 12, 2007, 02:53 PM
my thought also...

wouldn't have to wait till the 4 core version in 2008 - could do it now if they wanted to change the imac to the macpro motherboard.....

Just A Guess...

That would have to be a very large iMac, well over 30 inches. The 5000x is available only as a dual socket workstation motherboard with FB-DIMM memory. Unlike U3 and U4 used by the G5, it doesn't come in general single socket or consumer variants. That's what the 965G/P and 975x motherboards (and in Apple's case 945 mobile) and the Core 2 Duo are for.

BenRoethig
Mar 12, 2007, 02:55 PM
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

Bring on the Mac Pro 8 Cores Apple!http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/rotfl.gif

They're ruled out because there is no such thing as a single socket Xeon solution anymore.

Data
Mar 12, 2007, 03:29 PM
That would have to be a very large iMac, well over 30 inches. The 5000x is available only as a dual socket workstation motherboard with FB-DIMM memory. Unlike U3 and U4 used by the G5, it doesn't come in general single socket or consumer variants. That's what the 965G/P and 975x motherboards (and in Apple's case 945 mobile) and the Core 2 Duo are for.



Well if that's what it takes, i wouldn't mind seeing an real fast 30inch imac, out goes my and vcr/dvd set up and in(to my living room)comes the 30 inch iMac ;-). That is if its affordable of course, meaning around the price of the 24 inch now.

BenRoethig
Mar 12, 2007, 03:53 PM
Well if that's what it takes, i wouldn't mind seeing an real fast 30inch imac, out goes my and vcr/dvd set up and in(to my living room)comes the 30 inch iMac ;-). That is if its affordable of course, meaning around the price of the 24 inch now.

Come on, we're Mac users. $3500 isn't all that much for a computer.

XForge
Mar 12, 2007, 04:07 PM
Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

Screw that, bring on the quad-core-single-chip MacBOOK Pro!! = )

RedTomato
Mar 12, 2007, 04:29 PM
This is starting to look like a hiccup in Moore's law or is that officially dead?

Moore's law is nothing to do with processor speed, or computing power. It's a prediction of the increasing number of transistors on a chip per unit cost (dollars or euros or whatever).

With the Core2Duos, Moor's law is still going strong, as basically $300 buys you double the number of transistors on your processor than it did a couple of years ago.

Intel plans to take that up to 50 cores per chip, so Moore's law is safe for a good few more years.

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

Eidorian
Mar 12, 2007, 04:32 PM
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

Bring on the Mac Pro 8 Cores Apple!http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/rotfl.gif50W TDP is right around where an iMac can handle. Even so it's hot in there with 31-35W mobile chips.

I don't see a reason that clock speed numbers and the consumer's perception would prevent it from being in the iMac. The price per chip might for now. Then again I doubt Apple wants to redesign the internals of the iMac. It's devolving into a Conroe Vs. Merom discussion again.

Once a prosumer machine ($1,000-1,500) has a quad core standard the iMac will too. I don't count workstations from Dell either.

This is starting to look like a hiccup in Moore's law or is that officially dead?That would be transistor count which is still going up.

guzhogi
Mar 12, 2007, 04:36 PM
Computers don't run just one program. They run an OS that manages many of them. Updating the screen, reading data from the Internet and flushing data to disks, streaming data to the new Apple TV. All this goes on at once. The OS manages it well.

Also, applications that follows Apple's guidlines call a set of core services for do things with audio, video or to do a search or just about anyhting. These core services are written to take advantage of the hardware. Software not taking advantage of multiple processors is a myth. You can see for yourself just by watching Activity Monitor

There have been computers with multiple core now for what? 35 years? Maybe longer. They have been common for maybe 20 years and just now becoming common on consumer desktop systems. The software and theory on how to use mutliple processers is quite mature, Mac OS is really just BSD UNIX and BSD has been handling multiple processors for decades.

I remember using a BSD derived system that have two CPUs and right next to my big 20" CRT was my little "512K Mac" The Mac didn't even have a hard drive, just a floppy and a half megabyte of RAM. So I hade one system that was very much like Mac OS X for "real work" and the Mac for word processing and diagrams. I though even then that some one should mix these two systems together. Finally someonme at Next Inc. did. Point is that the software to use these multi-cores is quite mature.

You're right. However, many programs and even the core services can make better use of multiple cores. I'll admit, I'm no expert on how well software works, so forgive me if this is a stupid question: why are there single and multi-threaded apps? If core services can do use all the cores efficiently, why the difference?

Just remember, the average consumer doesn't use BSD but rather Windows and Macintosh. Most consumer computers that run those OSes haven't had multiple cores for years. Maybe 3-4 at most. While multiple cores do help speed up when you use multiple apps, when using a single app that's single-threaded, I don't see core services breaking it into different parts for each core.

Eidorian
Mar 12, 2007, 04:42 PM
You're right. However, many programs and even the core services can make better use of multiple cores. I'll admit, I'm no expert on how well software works, so forgive me if this is a stupid question: why are there single and multi-threaded apps? If core services can do use all the cores efficiently, why the difference?A single threaded application will benefit from multiple cores when multitasking. That is it'll only benefit from one core leaving the others free for other applications. It'll hit 100% on that core and stay there.

A multi-thread application will have multiple threads of its parent process that are distributed across multiple cores. Effectively giving you more then the 100% CPU time that you had with the single threaded application. Now one thing that arises from that is the thread queue so that your distributed job data is outputted properly.

guzhogi
Mar 12, 2007, 06:15 PM
A single threaded application will benefit from multiple cores when multitasking. That is it'll only benefit from one core leaving the others free for other applications. It'll hit 100% on that core and stay there.

A multi-thread application will have multiple threads of its parent process that are distributed across multiple cores. Effectively giving you more then the 100% CPU time that you had with the single threaded application. Now one thing that arises from that is the thread queue so that your distributed job data is outputted properly.

That's what I meant.

Eidorian
Mar 12, 2007, 06:35 PM
That's what I meant.Well it brings to bear that you could just run multiple instances of the same process. :rolleyes:

iMikeT
Mar 12, 2007, 08:35 PM
With all these new anouncements of upcoming hardware, I don't know when I'll be getting a new computer.:confused:

I hope these processors go in the iMac line. It would be great to see some real power go back into those machines.

chubad
Mar 12, 2007, 08:46 PM
Phooey! Give us some real horsepower. I don't give a rats behind about power consumption in a desktop. I want speed.;)

I have owend a Quad core Powermac for over a year and while it kicks butt, most applications don't use more than 1 core. True, you can multitask like there is no tomorrow but there are many times I wish I had just plain more megahertz speed!
Most of Photoshop utilizes all cores, Aperture sorta does, but hammers on your graphics card, Final cut and Compressor are good at spreading the load.
I do think that most people think there is a greater day to day speed increase with a Quad than their actually is .

AidenShaw
Mar 13, 2007, 07:09 AM
They're ruled out because there is no such thing as a single socket Xeon solution anymore.

Actually, the Xeon 3000 series are dual-core and quad-core single socket Xeons....

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/index.htm#3000
http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/31386102.pdf

Shaker
Mar 13, 2007, 08:04 AM
With all these new anouncements of upcoming hardware, I don't know when I'll be getting a new computer.:confused:

I hope these processors go in the iMac line. It would be great to see some real power go back into those machines.

you took the words out of my head...
:confused: :confused:

Lanbrown
Mar 13, 2007, 12:08 PM
I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

We don't need to know about the costumes you wear. ;)

Intel releasing new chips all the time is nothing new, they have done this for ages. Would you rather have IBM or Freescale providing the chips? Then you will be lucky is you see an update every year!

I think this new processor from Intel was designed to compete with this from Sun:: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/ But even with Intel's new chip Sun is still winning the the low power race

Sorry, but the Niagara series of processors from Sun are aimed at a different market. These are designed for high threads count situations and not per thread performance. An example would be web servers. Intel has nothing that can compete with the Niagara. It has encryption built-in so SSL can be done with virtually no penalty. No need for an offload card, this is done on the CPU. FP performance though is horrible, as the Niagara comes in 4, 6 and 8 cores, but only has one FP unit for all of the cores. Niagara2 will fix that issue and will have one FP unit for each core, more encryption schemes, more threads per core (from 4 to 8), higher clock speed and built-in 10-Gig-E x 2 and two-way support. It will still have four built-in memory controllers as does the current chip. Expect to see it in the next few months.

These processors are quite slow such that the performance per watt isn't really there for most things. If you benchmark it for databases and other apps that can exercise all 32 threads/8 cores you will find that a conventional 2x2 Intel or AMD rig will run rings around it such that it is not obvious why you would want to use it. Even when running 100 threads the Intel and AMD cores are capable of getting a lot more work done faster with no hardware thread support.

It's slow in some aspects and in other aspects it makes the Intel and AMD offerings look slow.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=524
“So if we blandly assume that the Xeon results would scale linearly, this suggests that it would take somewhat more than eight 3.2Ghz Intel Xeons to match one UltraSPARC T1 at 1.2Ghz. Similarly, it would take roughly four IBM Power5+ dual core machines.

So why is this interesting? For two reasons: first because that 2:1 ratio for Xeon to PPC crops up a lot in other benchmark results, and secondly because this illustrates the utter dominance of the "slow" CMT approach over higher megahertz on multi-threaded tasks.”

This is not the only benchmark (real world or otherwise) that shows this.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2657&p=4

Yep, these processors are quite slow. If you look at open databases, then this chip shows poor performance as the database is not tuned for the chip. Use another database and this chip does much better, and if the database is licensed per socket, this is a great chip.

http://www.opensparc.net/blogs/2006-03/colm-maccarthaigh-niagara-vs-ftp.heanet.ie-showdown.html

They're ruled out because there is no such thing as a single socket Xeon solution anymore.

Really, look here:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/ss/WF06a/15351-15351-3328412-241644-241475-3201178.html

Just because the chip support it, doesn't mean it has to be used.

As for the power the current Xeon's in the Mac Pro, here you go:
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/products/server/processors/5100/feature/index.htm

Eidorian
Mar 13, 2007, 01:59 PM
Actually, the Xeon 3000 series are dual-core and quad-core single socket Xeons....

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/index.htm#3000
http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/31386102.pdfa.k.a. Conroe/Allendale and Kentsfield. :rolleyes:

BenRoethig
Mar 13, 2007, 06:53 PM
Actually, the Xeon 3000 series are dual-core and quad-core single socket Xeons....

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/index.htm#3000
http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/31386102.pdf

The 3000 series is the Core 2 series with ecc support.

AidenShaw
Mar 13, 2007, 07:31 PM
The 3000 series is the Core 2 series with ecc support.

ECC support is in the chipset - a Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in a 975 motherboard supports ECC.

The truth is, a "Xeon" is any chip that Intel wants to call a "Xeon".

There are far more similarities among the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest chips than differences.

If Intel wants to put qualify and test a Conroe for server applications, put it in a server mobo, and call it a "Xeon" - then that's a single socket Xeon in my book.

This has been going on for years. The first Pentium 4 Extreme chips were Xeons in a Pentium 4 carrier.

Eidorian
Mar 13, 2007, 07:46 PM
There is very little overall difference between mobile/desktop/server when it comes to Core 2. It's the SAME chip but it has been rated for different environments and pin configurations.