Apple Using Exclusive 3GHz Xeon from Intel?

[MacRumors]

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

MacNN reports (http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/04/05/mac.pro.special.xeon/) that the 3GHz Xeon (Clovertown) processor that was introduced in the 8-core Mac Pro is a currently unannounced model.

According to comments by Intel's Bill Kircos: "We are indeed shipping a 3.0GHz Xeon version [and] expect to see faster gigahertz speeds for our high-end [Core 2] Extreme PCs very soon, too. For now, the product is in limited production and Apple has chosen to adopt it. We will introduce another 3.0GHz Xeon SKU later on as well."

Indeed, it appears Apple had waited for the 3GHz Quad-Core Xeon to become available before launching the 8-Core Mac Pro.

While rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/10/25/8-core-mac-pro-with-clovertown-in-november/) of an 8-core Mac Pro began back in October, the available chips at that time maxed out at 2.66Ghz. Only in March (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/12/power-efficient-quad-core-xeons/) was it revealed by Intel that a 3GHz version would be coming "later this year".

It appears Apple is the first to use the as-yet unannounced 3GHz Xeon (Clovertown) chips.

[i_am_a_cow]

I guess that's good...

[Cassie]

Haha, once again, Apple comes first.:)

[Chaszmyr]

Apple has been getting all sorts of special treatment from Intel ever since the switch, it seems... Intel must have had some particular reason that they really wanted to hook up with Apple, which I think would transcend current profits.

[tvguru]

It's nice to see Apple have some pull for cutting edge technology from partner companies. Now only if I had enough money to use such technology. :cool: :o

[Whistleway]

I guess that's good...

Not really. Just another way to keep up the prices by staying on high price curve.

[arn]

I find it interesting that Apple is able to swing that kind of influence on Intel. However, it also makes sense they had to wait for the 3.0GHz before they could introduce the 8-core.

It just fits better with the 8-core being 3Ghz. Now it's clearly the highest end and people should be willing to pay a premium.

Otherwise, it would have been confusing.

Should I get a 3GHZ Quad Core or a 2.66GHz Octo-core sort of thing.

arn

[/"\/oo\/"\]

neat. not like it matters, but I approve.

[GanleyBurger]

The MacRumors Buyer's Guide now says Buy Now! - Product just updated on both the Apple Cinema Displays and the Mac Pro.

Should it really say this? :confused:

Was the Octo option really a product line update or a new option?

Was the price drop in the displays a product update or a way to blow them out?

What constitutes MacRumors saying Buy Now - Product Updated (days since last update)?:confused:

Were these changes from Apple to hold us off until NAB and WWDC??? Does anyone still have hope for big Apple product line changes??? By June??? :confused:

PS: and why did they release on a Wednesday????

[auyongtc]

Apple has been getting all sorts of special treatment from Intel ever since the switch, it seems... Intel must have had some particular reason that they really wanted to hook up with Apple, which I think would transcend current profits.

Perhaps to steer :apple: away from AMD :D ?
:rolleyes:

[Lord Nerdos]

These juicy 3GHz quad-cores are going to be even more juicy and delicious after the reported July price-drop. Intel wants to put the boot into AMD, and if means cheaper macs then I'm all for it:D

*Cackles evilly*

*pauses momentarily and thinks about the long term implications of having only one major computer chip manufacturer*

[arn]

The MacRumors Buyer's Guide now says Buy Now! - Product just updated on both the Apple Cinema Displays and the Mac Pro.


I addressed this in a previous thread.

The Cinema's "Buy it Now" is certainly justified. Apple generally doesn't "clear out" items with discounts. Sometimes they offer rebates, but not simple price cuts. For displays, price cuts are as good as new releases in general. Apple tends to do these updates like this. They should be good for the next few months. Thought it doesn't preclude Apple from introducing, say, a much larger form factor (42"?) screen at NAB or something. But for these existing models, I think "Buy it Now" is right.

The Octo-Core, I agree. The only Mac Pro that's a true "Buy it Now" is the Octo-Core. The remainder of the line has some age to it.

Edit: The Mac Pro buyer's guide page as been updated
arn

[nagromme]

That's what Dell gets for sneaking around with that AMD!

[GanleyBurger]

I addressed this in a previous thread.

The Cinema's "Buy it Now" is certainly justified. Apple generally doesn't "clear out" items with discounts. Sometimes they offer rebates, but not simple price cuts. For displays, price cuts are as good as new releases in general. Apple tends to do these updates like this. They should be good for the next few months. Thought it doesn't preclude Apple from introducing, say, a much larger form factor (42"?) screen at NAB or something. But for these existing models, I think "Buy it Now" is right.

The Octo-Core, I agree. The only Mac Pro that's a true "Buy it Now" is the Octo-Core. The remainder of the line has some age to it.

arn


It's just that a lot of us have been discussing thinner displays, HD stuff, bigger screens, new designs, built-in eyesight, etc. We got none of that. Well... it is nice to see the lower prices (but now the refurbs are only $50 less).

[zen]

Limited production of an unannounced chip? That'll explain the price then!

[Eidorian]

Limited production of an unannounced chip? That'll explain the price then!Limited production of a processor that was set to ship later this year.

[Marble]

It's good to know that Apple and Intel still have a healthy relationship. 1+ years after Apple and IBM teamed up with the G5, things certainly didn't seem this cozy.

[booksacool1]

I was surprised about seeing a 3ghz Quad part. Didn't think one existed, now I know why...

[SiliconAddict]

Well 3Ghz....better late then never. :D

When did Jobs say they were working on the 3Ghz G5? :p

[Eidorian]

Well 3Ghz....better late then never. :D

When did Jobs say they were working on the 3Ghz G5? :pWWDC 2003 had the 3 GHz PowerPC 970 promise.

3 GHz has been available since release for 2 x 2 Xeon configuration.

[GFLPraxis]

I find it interesting that Apple is able to swing that kind of influence on Intel. However, it also makes sense they had to wait for the 3.0GHz before they could introduce the 8-core.

It just fits better with the 8-core being 3Ghz. Now it's clearly the highest end and people should be willing to pay a premium.

Otherwise, it would have been confusing.

Should I get a 3GHZ Quad Core or a 2.66GHz Octo-core sort of thing.

arn

On the other hand, you could imagine that it is helpful to Intel to have a testing ground for the new processors. The Mac users are the test subjects, and since the Xeons are only available in limited quantities, this allows Intel to release them without having to worry about huge orders being placed from every manufacturer (just let Apple have them).

[Jarcrew]

Well 3Ghz....better late then never. :D

When did Jobs say they were working on the 3Ghz G5? :pIn all fairness, from what I understood, that was IBM's fault, wasn't it?

[belovedmonster]

Apple has been getting all sorts of special treatment from Intel ever since the switch, it seems... Intel must have had some particular reason that they really wanted to hook up with Apple, which I think would transcend current profits.

Arent Apple the biggest computer maker in the world now? Im sure I read somewhere that out of all the computer brands like HP and Dell they are now the biggest selling. Isnt that reason enough for Intel to give them special treatment?

[Eidorian]

Arent Apple the biggest computer maker in the world now? Im sure I read somewhere that out of all the computer brands like HP and Dell they are now the biggest selling. Isnt that reason enough for Intel to give them special treatment?Apple holds it's own against HP within the Top 5 for hardware sales. It's not number on though.

[gsnixon]

Its true Apple doesn't represent a large revenue stream for Intel. But their extremely high profile image in the tech and business world makes them a very valuable partner. Debuting the 8-core 3GHz Mac Pro highlights Intel's technological prowess far better than a mass-market manufacturer would. Apple gets preferential treatment, yes, but it lets Intel put on the Apple halo for free.

[gnasher729]

Apple has been getting all sorts of special treatment from Intel ever since the switch, it seems... Intel must have had some particular reason that they really wanted to hook up with Apple, which I think would transcend current profits.

I posted that when the whole Intel/Apple story started: At that time Intel got their ass spanked by AMD, and all their chips were used for where tired, sad old Dell computers doing boring old things.

Intel chips inside a Macintosh do things that are ahead of anything else. Intel employees don't give a damn whether Dell uses Intel or AMD (apart from the sales people, and bean counters and shareholders obviously care). However, the fact that Apple uses Intel and not AMD is _very_ important to the employees and for company morale. Every time they see a Macintosh, they can be _proud_ that their chips are inside.

[theshibboleth]

WWDC 2003 had the 3 GHz PowerPC 970 promise.

3 GHz has been available since release for 2 x 2 Xeon configuration.

But 3 GHz isn't the same for different chips.

[a456]

I find it interesting that Apple is able to swing that kind of influence on Intel. However, it also makes sense they had to wait for the 3.0GHz before they could introduce the 8-core.

The reason Apple may have influence is because the people who really need these more powerful chips are largely film makers and producers, who often use Macs, and so the company is biting at the bit to include them in their hardware. While it is true that other PC producers sell more PCs and more Intel chips than Apple, they are largely mid-range, middle of the road systems. Many Core 2 Duo laptop PCs advertised on the TV have 1.66 ghz chips rather than the 2+ ghz we see in Apple machines. The other PC manufacturers do not want these chips at premium prices, they want them when they are affordable for consumers that do video editing for fun (on a PC?), photos and DTP, etc.

[emotion]

This bodes well for new macbook pro and santa rosa. I thought Apple were a little slow on uptake of the C2D stuff last year and I think the MBP needs an update soon (mag catch, user HD replacement, better gfx, faster memory).

As long as what is released isn't beta hardware. The CD based hardware was too close to that for comfort if you ask me.

[robPOD]

Very interesting, hopefully everything else will get updated soon

[stainlessliquid]

I dont know why people think Intel is giving apple special treatment. He said "For now, the product is in limited production and Apple has chosen to adopt it." Which means Apple chose to use it, not Intel chose to let only Apple use it. Other companies simply dont want to use it, probably because of price and the fact that not many people would buy it right now. Theres nothing to suggest that Apple has exclusive rights.

Honestly I dont know why Apple is doing it, it doesnt make very much sense. The other computers need to be updated, not some mega computer that is going to see minimal sales. They should have done like the other companies and waited for a cheaper more refined 3ghz chip since Intel doesnt seem too confident about the quality of this model. Or even better, they should have made a C2D Extreme mac pro instead.

[kansast]

Is it a coincidence that these new Macs with new processors, come out just in time as new Photoshop comes out ? if only I had the money :)

[freddiecable]

interesting indeed - but more indicative is that "We are indeed shipping a...[and] expect to see faster gigahertz speeds for our high-end [Core 2] Extreme PCs very soon, too," said Intel's Bill Kircos.

we can certainly expect new iMacs soon - hopefully with new design... :)

[Eraserhead]

Honestly I dont know why Apple is doing it, it doesnt make very much sense.

Probably because they are about to release new Logic/Final Cut, which can use those extra cores advantageously. It's worth it to them to have the super fast chips for that. For a high end PC you only use them in servers and it's probably not worth it.

[Umbongo]

Arent Apple the biggest computer maker in the world now? Im sure I read somewhere that out of all the computer brands like HP and Dell they are now the biggest selling. Isnt that reason enough for Intel to give them special treatment?

HP did $13b+ in hardware last quarter, dell did $10.5b+ however I don't think either list units sold. Apple did $2.2b on 1.6m units. However, as people mentioned already in this thread, Apple are a perfect showcase for Intel for a number of reasons. High profile, they use the high end chips and they appeal to professionals who have sway in the industries to name but a few.

[k2k koos]

Or not? what is the current status of the Mac market share? Is it still on the rise, and is Apple currently at 5% and upwards, or closer to 10% now?

[iBunny]

The high price is to be expected because:

1) Its Apple
2) Its a unrelased processor, currently excluseive to Apple
3) It is currently the fastest, most powerful workstation in the world with 8 cores at 3GHz. Total processing power of 24GHz inside a nice quiet box.
4) You get what you pay for.

If I had a need for it, I would drop for it no doubt. But My Music Collection, Internet surfing habbits, and iPhoto collection does not require 24GHz. Not yet anyway.... :D

[kalisphoenix]

The high price is to be expected because:

1) Its Apple
2) Its a unrelased processor, currently excluseive to Apple
3) It is currently the fastest, most powerful workstation in the world with 8 cores at 3GHz. Total processing power of 24GHz inside a nice quiet box.
4) You get what you pay for.

If I had a need for it, I would drop for it no doubt. But My Music Collection, Internet surfing habbits, and iPhoto collection does not require 24GHz. Not yet anyway.... :D

I wish I had an 8-core Mac Pro just to see if I could ever get it above ~30% processor usage :P

[SPUY767]

Considering that you can't buy this puppy anywhere else, I'd say it's a safe bet. Everyone was afraid that Apple would be second fiddle to other PC manufacturers because of size, but as I had predicted, Intel is doing exactly the opposite and using Apple as kind of a technological showcase, likely because on the modern Windows machine, 20-30% of all the processing power is hogged by background and unnecessary processses such as Spy/Adware tools. It is good to affirm my belief that Apple entered into a good contract with Intel, I'll have to keep an eye on what my stock does if this news that Apple has exclusivity to an Intel chip hits the street.

It is kind of ironic, and not something that I expected, that after all the ruckus regarding Apple's Intel switch about how Apple was guaranteed now to never be faster than a Windows machine, that they truly are the fastest desktop computer that you can buy for less than the price of a small village. Good job Apple.

[SPUY767]

I wish I had an 8-core Mac Pro just to see if I could ever get it above ~30% processor usage :P

BOINC, part of the SETI/Folding @Home project, happily uses all four of my cores to the Max, the application is desitgned to assign as many threads as it takes to eat an entire processor, and one can only assume that it would have as little trouble using 8 cores as 4.

Probably because they are about to release new Logic/Final Cut, which can use those extra cores advantageously. It's worth it to them to have the super fast chips for that. For a high end PC you only use them in servers and it's probably not worth it.

Considering that I cajoled the SysAdmin at my last job to replace 6 servers with 2 MacPro's and virtualization. I'm not sure that 8-Cores are not worth it for servers.

[BenRoethig]

Arent Apple the biggest computer maker in the world now? Im sure I read somewhere that out of all the computer brands like HP and Dell they are now the biggest selling. Isnt that reason enough for Intel to give them special treatment?

Not even close. They have the largest profits because of sky high profit margins. HP and Dell account for close to 2/3rds of Computers sold. Apple Accounts for one in every 20 on a good day.

It's good to know that Apple and Intel still have a healthy relationship. 1+ years after Apple and IBM teamed up with the G5, things certainly didn't seem this cozy.

Apple was also IBM's only customer. IBM couldn't make G5 development really worth its while. They didn't have systems from Dell and HP to spread the developments costs around. Apple gets exclusives because it's high profile and low volume.

interesting indeed - but more indicative is that "We are indeed shipping a...[and] expect to see faster gigahertz speeds for our high-end [Core 2] Extreme PCs very soon, too," said Intel's Bill Kircos.

we can certainly expect new iMacs soon - hopefully with new design... :)

This has nothing to do with the iMac as it uses the mobile platform.

[SPUY767]

Not even close. They have the largest profits because of sky high profit margins. HP and Dell account for close to 2/3rds of Computers sold. Apple Accounts for one in every 20 on a good day.

Apple's share of the consumer market is a fair bit higher than 5%, I don't have exact figures, but it is closer to 10%. Dell and HP have grossly inflated numbers because they move thousands upon thousands of razor thin profit margin units to business and what not. Since business account for about 30% of all computer purchases, and a staggering majority of those are Windows machines, Apple performs much stronger in the consumer market than overall marke numbers would have you believe.

[PlaceofDis]

The high price is to be expected because:

1) Its Apple
2) Its a unrelased processor, currently excluseive to Apple
3) It is currently the fastest, most powerful workstation in the world with 8 cores at 3GHz. Total processing power of 24GHz inside a nice quiet box.
4) You get what you pay for.

If I had a need for it, I would drop for it no doubt. But My Music Collection, Internet surfing habbits, and iPhoto collection does not require 24GHz. Not yet anyway.... :D

1. yes.
2. possibly exclusive.
3. wrong.

just because there are 8 processing cores, does not mean that you're getting 24GHz out of it.

[jdechko]

Apple has been getting all sorts of special treatment from Intel ever since the switch, it seems... Intel must have had some particular reason that they really wanted to hook up with Apple, which I think would transcend current profits.

Yeah, that was one thing that I was wondering about with the switch. With IBM, Apple was practically begging (possibly? Does Steve beg? :) ) them to do something with the G5's and when it became apparent that development had stagnated (what with the supercomputers and cell designs) Apple had to leave or risk falling completely behind. Of course we all know that this is what is most likely behind the final push to switch to Intel.

I had concerns that with Apple's relatively low volume of chips (compared to Dell & HP mainly) that Apple would be forced (in a sense) to take whatever Intel gave them and deal with it. This story, however, is great news in that Intel really supports Apple and is assisting Apple's push to be on the frontlines of technology (at least as far as CPU -- Maybe Intel will buy nVidia :D )

[CoreWeb]

Not even close. They have the largest profits because of sky high profit margins. HP and Dell account for close to 2/3rds of Computers sold. Apple Accounts for one in every 20 on a good day.

Actually, I thought Apple had >10% in laptops, which is significantly more than 5%... not sure about desktop.

[asterizk]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
It appears Apple is the first to use the as-yet unannounced 3GHz Xeon (Clovertown) chips.

Well doesn't that just kick some ass?

[Swarmlord]

I hope that the momentum of chip improvements continues throughout the year.

[asterizk]

Not really. Just another way to keep up the prices by staying on high price curve.

Good point... hadn't thought of it that way. Still, pretty cool since it's way more than I need anyway :)

[johnee]

I find it interesting that Apple is able to swing that kind of influence on Intel.

i said it before and i'll say it again, because your post proves it... and i know from experience

Apple has the best negotiators in the business.
Apple is the walmart of the computer industry. If you can't provide apple what they want at the price they want, they will go somewhere else and WILL get it.

[miketcool]

I am going to have to say this move by Intel was to assure Apple that they will come through. Apple could adopt AMD and court them if they wanted. But after years of IBM delays and problems, the last thing Intel wants is Apple to start shopping around. I just see this as being the good salesperson, and letting :apple: known that they are reliable.
How many years ago did Jobs promise the magestic 3GHZ G5? Take that IBM and neigh-sayers, there is 8 3GHZs Zeons to break that mark.

[SMM]

Considering that you can't buy this puppy anywhere else, I'd say it's a safe bet. Everyone was afraid that Apple would be second fiddle to other PC manufacturers because of size, but as I had predicted, Intel is doing exactly the opposite and using Apple as kind of a technological showcase, likely because on the modern Windows machine, 20-30% of all the processing power is hogged by background and unnecessary processses such as Spy/Adware tools. It is good to affirm my belief that Apple entered into a good contract with Intel, I'll have to keep an eye on what my stock does if this news that Apple has exclusivity to an Intel chip hits the street.

It is kind of ironic, and not something that I expected, that after all the ruckus regarding Apple's Intel switch about how Apple was guaranteed now to never be faster than a Windows machine, that they truly are the fastest desktop computer that you can buy for less than the price of a small village. Good job Apple.

Apple is a computer manufacturer, but they are also an engineering company, like Intel. Dell is an assembly company. HP is both, but they do less engineering with their desktop, laptop lines. Apple is far more likely to try innovative technology, and develop a collaborative relationship with Intel than almost anyone else. Apple also has a tremendous presence in the consumer electronic market, and soon the telecom market. So, Intel's chip sales to Apple are not limited to desktop computers.

What I find encouraging is the fact, Intel must have been well-convinced Apple's future roadmap is very promising. Just speculating, but the Apple/Intel deal must have taken a couple years to go from concept to announcement. So, it was Apple, circa 2003-2004, that Intel was negotiating with intitally. Apple would not have been able to keep too many secrets from their new partner. Both companies seem to be hitting on both cylinders. Good ju ju.

[johnee]

I am going to have to say this move by Intel was to assure Apple that they will come through. Apple could adopt AMD and court them if they wanted. But after years of IBM delays and problems, the last thing Intel wants is Apple to start shopping around. I just see this as being the good salesperson, and letting :apple: known that they are reliable.
How many years ago did Jobs promise the magestic 3GHZ G5? Take that IBM and neigh-sayers, there is 8 3GHZs Zeons to break that mark.

You are right that intel is afraid apple will go to amd.

apple likes to play two competitors against each other, just like walmart.

and we NEVER promised apple 3Ghz, they assumed we would provide that to them.

[dartzorichalcos]

Interesting. This is the fastest mac Apple has ever made. I would want to see some benchmarks on how it compares against PowerMac G5 Qaud. I will get the next Mac Pro update model and keep the G5. I will have two powerful computers.

[AidenShaw]

Otherwise, it would have been confusing.

Should I get a 3GHZ Quad Core or a 2.66GHz Octo-core sort of thing.

And what will Apple do this summer when the 3.16 and 3.33 GHz dual-core Xeons come out? ;)

Stop selling the octo, because it will be confusing?

[Benjamindaines]

Apple has been getting all sorts of special treatment from Intel ever since the switch, it seems... Intel must have had some particular reason that they really wanted to hook up with Apple, which I think would transcend current profits.

Testing ;) If it explodes it's only 4% of the market :p

[AidenShaw]

Considering that I cajoled the SysAdmin at my last job to replace 6 servers with 2 MacPro's and virtualization.

And did you lose your job because of that advice?

:eek:

[Lone Deranger]

Really? With Adobe CS3 just out (after a loooong wait) and NAB right around the corner? You don't see the logic in this?
This is the time the Power users (VFX industry, editors, pro-photographers, etc.) are primed and ready to purchase. :)

Honestly I dont know why Apple is doing it, it doesnt make very much sense.

[Eidorian]

And did you lose your job because of that advice?

:eek:It'd be nice if you gave a reason why they would.

[Lone Deranger]

>Here< (http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=16180) are some numbers posted in the modo forums. Matt Craig, one of Luxology's developers, mentions speed increases up to a factor of 1.96x compared to his old quad (2x2) 3.0Ghz Mac Pro. Those are some impressive numbers. :)

Compared to the even older G5 quads the numbers reach a sustainable 3.1x increase.

Interesting. This is the fastest mac Apple has ever made. I would want to see some benchmarks on how it compares against PowerMac G5 Qaud. I will get the next Mac Pro update model and keep the G5. I will have two powerful computers.

[Linkjeniero]

just because there are 8 processing cores, does not mean that you're getting 24GHz out of it.


Yes it does. What it doesn't mean is that the computer will behave like a one core 24 GHz machine; but you do get 24 GHz of processing power. All you need to take advantege of it is a task that's optimized to use all the processors at once (like SETI@Home, for example; or a well optimized audio or video encoding), or be doing several tasks that all together max out the processors' capacity.

[dartzorichalcos]

>Here< (http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=16180) are some numbers posted in the modo forums. Matt Craig, one of Luxology's developers, mentions speed increases up to a factor of 1.96x compared to his old quad (2x2) 3.0Ghz Mac Pro. Those are some impressive numbers. :)

Compared to the even older G5 quads the numbers reach a sustainable 3.1x increase.

Thanks. :) That's what I wanted to see.
But I still wonder if a 8GB or 16GB PowerMac G5 Quad will beat the stock 8 Core Mac Pro in performance.

[Eraserhead]

Considering that I cajoled the SysAdmin at my last job to replace 6 servers with 2 MacPro's and virtualization. I'm not sure that 8-Cores are not worth it for servers.

What I mean is that you can probably save money by using two 4 core servers, whereas a Pro user can only use one computer at a time (at least efficiently).

[BornAgainMac]

Apple is going to be the first for the latest Intel offerings. They tend to cover the high-end consumer / business. Dell and HP take the low end stuff.

[Eidorian]

This gives some hope for Santa Rosa based Macs at NAB.

[guzhogi]

And what will Apple do this summer when the 3.16 and 3.33 GHz dual-core Xeons come out? ;)

Stop selling the octo, because it will be confusing?

If this is any indication, probably pull a few strings at Intel and have them quad-core. If not, probably wait a while. We'll just have to wait and see. Americans are so impatient for newer and faster things!

[Benjamindaines]

And what will Apple do this summer when the 3.16 and 3.33 GHz dual-core Xeons come out? ;)

Stop selling the octo, because it will be confusing?

I can see the speed bumps happening this summer but I don't think Apple would drop the Quad before Fall or Winter because they would want to keep the price the same in not lower it.

[Umbongo]

And what will Apple do this summer when the 3.16 and 3.33 GHz dual-core Xeons come out? ;)

Stop selling the octo, because it will be confusing?

I think the price drops will allow them to sell only octo and avoid such a situation. I'd expect 2.00, 2.66 and 3Ghz models. Not the greatest solution for the consumer by far, but very Apple like.

[Lone Deranger]

If you'd render a scene small enough to avoid heavy memory swapping, then no way. Throw enough geo and textures at it, then sure, the 16GB G5 would probably beat a 1GB Mac Pro.

Bit of a strange way to benchmark though. :confused:

Thanks. :) That's what I wanted to see.
But I still wonder if a 8GB or 16GB PowerMac G5 Quad will beat the stock 8 Core Mac Pro in performance.

[shawnce]

Arent Apple the biggest computer maker in the world now? Im sure I read somewhere that out of all the computer brands like HP and Dell they are now the biggest selling. Isnt that reason enough for Intel to give them special treatment?

Huh? What possibly made you believe that? Apple ships 10+ times fewer system then Dell or HP per year.

[MonkeyClaw]

Huh? What possibly made you believe that? Apple ships 10+ times fewer system then Dell or HP per year.

Well to be honest I havent heard that either but there is a difference between fastest selling and how many are shipping from others. So Apple technically could be the fastest selling yet still have a smaller market share and still be shipping less than other companies.

[princealfie]

Huh? What possibly made you believe that? Apple ships 10+ times fewer system then Dell or HP per year.

Yeah but it's power to the mac people now.

[shawnce]

Well to be honest I havent heard that either but there is a difference between fastest selling and how many are shipping from others. So Apple technically could be the fastest selling yet still have a smaller market share and still be shipping less than other companies.

"fastest selling" what does that mean?

I think the price drops will allow them to sell only octo and avoid such a situation. I'd expect 2.00, 2.66 and 3Ghz models. Not the greatest solution for the consumer by far, but very Apple like.

I personally believe that after the price drop we will see Mac Pro with a expanded set of build-to-order processor options. I bet it will include dual-core and quad-core processors.

[dartzorichalcos]

Bit of a strange way to benchmark though. :confused:

I sure want to see somebody test the 16GB G5 against the 8 Core Mac Pro and see which one is better.

[shawnce]

But 3 GHz isn't the same for different chips.

The dual-core Xeon (53xx family) and quad-core Xeon (also part of the 53xx family) contain the same cores. So when comparing a 3 GHz core in one and a 3 GHz core in the other they would have the same performance/capabilities (granted bus and cache outside of the core are slightly different and hence would affect relative performance).

[Digitalclips]

Not really. Just another way to keep up the prices by staying on high price curve.

Wow! What a 'half-empty' glass you drink from.

[BlackDan]

And don't forget: it's not just computer sales now. With the Apple TV, Intel will probably sell millions of extra cpu's. Potentially there's intel chips in the next iPod, iPhone, whatever. If I were Intel, I'd give Apple preferential treatment as well... So long the other big players, don't find out and start complaining that is :rolleyes:

[photomaniac]

That's what Dell gets for sneaking around with that AMD!

that's hilarious! ...and probably so true! :D

[shawnce]

Not really. Just another way to keep up the prices by staying on high price curve.

I am sorry but have you actually attempted to price out a matching workstation class system from HP or Dell? You may be surprised at how good of a deal the Mac Pro is for what you get (not even including the nice case and near silent cooling you get with the Mac Pro).

Again the Mac Pro isn't a consumer system...

[BenRoethig]

Again the Mac Pro isn't a consumer system...

Unfortunately apple has positioned themselves where it has to be. They don't have a desktop in their lineup.

[Umbongo]

Unfortunately apple has positioned themselves where it has to be. They don't have a desktop in their lineup.

And this is where most complaints from potential buyers stem from.

[SeaFox]

But 3 GHz isn't the same for different chips.

Yes, but wasn't Steve referring to the PowerMac G5? Not the chip inside it.

I guess by the that logic still haven't reached 3ghz then. After all, there is still no Power Mac G5 that runs at 3Ghz.

I'm going to count myself in the "we were told one year, it took four years" camp.

[shawnce]

Unfortunately apple has positioned themselves where it has to be. They don't have a desktop in their lineup.

They have two desktop units in their lineup ... granted they aren't a mini tower but they are desktop consumer systems.

Now would it be nice to have a mini tower from Apple.. HECK YEAH

I believe we may get one in the not so distant future given the that Mac Pro will stay a workstation class system (even more so with the likely gain of additional 8-core processor options and hopeful leverage of hardware RAID in the chipset).

Anyway my comments on pricing was in regards to the Mac Pro and the Mac Pro is well priced against the competition.

[BenRoethig]

And this is where most complaints from potential buyers stem from.

And the mismatches in reviews. It's not that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. It's an excellent deal as it was intended to be used. However, if it's put up against a PC Core 2 Duo desktop because it's the only thing Apple offers with twin optical drive drives, multiple hard drive slots, upgradeable high end graphics, and can practically accept more than 2GB of RAM it doesn't look like such a good deal. It's kind of like having to buy a commercial duty truck if you want a bed to haul something in.

[Cult Follower]

I hope Apple gets more deals like this, it will keep them ahead.

[CJD2112]

Sucks that popping those quad core chips into my Mac Pro would void my warranty, cause in a few months time when those prices might come down, I'd do it in a second.

[bretm]

On the other hand, you could imagine that it is helpful to Intel to have a testing ground for the new processors. The Mac users are the test subjects, and since the Xeons are only available in limited quantities, this allows Intel to release them without having to worry about huge orders being placed from every manufacturer (just let Apple have them).

That's exactly why Intel and Apple's relationship is going to be strong. Apple get's to be just where it wants. A niche market of expensive high end machines. Intel gets to put out it's new processors ahead of the competition. Other computer manufacturers don't really complain because they need either more quantity or their market is lower end.

[gugy]

Interesting. This is the fastest mac Apple has ever made. I would want to see some benchmarks on how it compares against PowerMac G5 Qaud. I will get the next Mac Pro update model and keep the G5. I will have two powerful computers.

I am in the same boat. I am curious to see how much faster is the octo using Adobe CS2 and CS3 in comparison to the quad G5.
Everyday it passes I am glad I purchased the Quad back in October 2005. This computer still one of the most powerful in the Mac world.

[kenaustus]

Arent Apple the biggest computer maker in the world now? Im sure I read somewhere that out of all the computer brands like HP and Dell they are now the biggest selling. Isnt that reason enough for Intel to give them special treatment?

It's not Apple's size that counts - it's their willingness to push the technology. Before Apple Intel was stuck with rather boring and slow changing OEMs who were about as exciting for Intel as watching as snail run around.

Now Intel has a company that will be far more dynamic. This not only serves Apple well, but wil also light a fire under some PC OEMs.

[Peace]

This all sounds to me like Steve Jobs really wanted to get his "3 GHz" machine.

Well he has it now..Congrats Steve! :)

[iBunny]

1. yes.
2. possibly exclusive.
3. wrong.

just because there are 8 processing cores, does not mean that you're getting 24GHz out of it.

I didnt say you would be.... but you do have 8 cores... and they all run at 3GHz... if you do the math... you have a total power of 24GHz under the hood. Which is not wrong.

[Macmaniac]

I wish I had the disposable income to buy one of these puppies:D

[Howmanoid]

Isn't it interesting that Intel are getting the 3GHz Clovertown piece to Apple before letting their bigger customers like HP and Dell have access to it?? Wonder what's going on here? Maybe they think they'll work the kinks out with Apple before it goes prime time with the big boys...

[skoorbevad]

I didnt say you would be.... but you do have 8 cores... and they all run at 3GHz... if you do the math... you have a total power of 24GHz under the hood. Which is not wrong.

No, it's incorrect.

You can make a comparison saying "If I harness eight identical horses together, they'll be able to run eight times as fast!" Except not. They won't be able to run any faster than a single horse would, they just might be able to pull more weight and maintain speed.

Running a properly threaded application that does not require any more CPU cycles than, let's say, 2 cores can handle, it will be no faster on an 8-core machine. Arguably, it will even be slower due to overhead created by communication between processing cores. However, when it becomes important is when using a heavily threaded application (Final Cut, etc. etc.) under duress, when having more workers available on the assembly line will speed up a complex operation.

There's a formula that explains this.

The statement above would be more correct, however with Peryn (or later?), when Intel has planned what is essentially the ability to combine multiple cores into one big core. In that case, you might actually be able to produce 24GHz of processing power in a straight line (probably less, given overhead) out of 8 3GHz cores. Not many details about that is known, however, but I'm sure it will become something of an industry standard across Intel/AMD chips in the future.

In short, I think 8-cores only has a performance increase for a very small set of users, given the same MHz measurement as an equivalent 4-core chip. If you need it, you definitely know. Most users will probably be better off using the same money they'd use on the 8-core upgrade on RAM.

[AidenShaw]

Isn't it interesting that Intel are getting the 3GHz Clovertown piece to Apple before letting their bigger customers like HP and Dell have access to it?? Wonder what's going on here? Maybe they think they'll work the kinks out with Apple before it goes prime time with the big boys...

Intel gives lots of engineering samples to all their OEMs, and even to software players. The kinks get worked out.

Apple probably decided that it could meet demand with the quantity of engineering samples that Intel could provide.

Note also, that these chips are *IDENTICAL* to the 2.66 GHz chips - there's really no difference in the systems from anyone else's dual-dual-duals.

Intel's yields and quality are improving and there are now enough chips landing in the "3.0 GHz bin" that they can be sold. That's all.

[ClimbingTheLog]

Limited production of an unannounced chip? That'll explain the price then!

$1400 for 4 extra 3GHz cores seem like a great deal. Who's complaining about that?

[Eidorian]

Isn't it interesting that Intel are getting the 3GHz Clovertown piece to Apple before letting their bigger customers like HP and Dell have access to it?? Wonder what's going on here? Maybe they think they'll work the kinks out with Apple before it goes prime time with the big boys...I have to agree with AidenShaw. All the Xeon processors are made using the same processes. In the end they still have different performing characteristics for different environments. Intel is just now able to effectively supply enough 3.0 GHz Clovertown processors for Apple to be able to have it as an option.

Sadly, there is a rather nice post from ages ago that shows a silicon wafer and what poritions of it would eventually turn out as certain Intel processors (Celeron, Mobile, or Xeon.) Defective chips just get cache cut or cores turned off. (Celeron or Conroe w/2 MB of L2 Cache) There's no reason to dump a chip when you can guarantee it'll live on just fine as a Celeron.

[Howmanoid]

I have to agree with AidenShaw. All the Xeon processors are made using the same processes. In the end they still have different performing characteristics for different environments. Intel is just now able to effectively supply enough 3.0 GHz Clovertown processors for Apple to be able to have it as an option.

Sadly, there is a rather nice post from ages ago that shows a silicon wafer and what poritions of it would eventually turn out as certain Intel processors (Celeron, Mobile, or Xeon.) Defective chips just get cache cut or cores turned off. (Celeron or Conroe w/2 MB of L2 Cache) There's no reason to dump a chip when you can guarantee it'll live on just fine as a Celeron.

Thanks to you both for this. I had no idea that all the variants came off the same production and were classified after production. It makes tons of sense the way you've explained it.

[Eidorian]

Thanks to you both for this. I had no idea that all the variants came off the same production and were classified after production. It makes tons of sense the way you've explained it.A Core 2 is a Core 2 is a Core 2. They just meet different thermal envelopes and sustainable clock speeds.

Intel at one point did make every line using an entirely different set of processes. (Pentium 4 would become Celeron and Pentium-M had no relation. And let us not talk about bringing in Itanium.) It is much more cost effective to just use the same process across the board then slap a different pin set, SKU, and price once you know how a Core 2 will perform after burn in testing.

[scrambledwonder]

Further evidence that Apple will get Santa Rosa a few weeks before everybody else. Apple is high-end, high-profile and has limited production runs. Perfect company to introduce cutting-edge technology.

But, will the big boys on the block get upset? Dell, HP and IBM? We'll see.

[scrambledwonder]

And what gives? No rumors about MacBook Pros? With Intel basically announcing the release of Santa Rosa within the next few weeks?

And NAB right around the corner?

I am grateful for MacPros (they enable creative geniuses across the world), but I'm interested in portable power.

[seashellz]

Ive read that APPLE had the highest growth/sales rating of 2006.
Also the WSJ named APPLE as company of the year-or was it Forbes...or Fortune.

As for Intel giving Apple specail treatment, for fear of their business going to AMD-profit is profit these days, and im sure that Intel welcomes even a 2&#37; gain in sales from Apple-every little bit counts these days.
Oh.
and maybe they know something we dont....

[CalfCanuck]

While Apple is no where near the size of HP or Dell regarding current sales, I'm sure winning its business caused a celebration at Intel for the following reasons:

Aside from winning back customers from AMD, bringing Apple into the fold was a true increase in sales. When most sales shift between HP and Dell it merely means that you sell one less processor to one and one more processor to another. Apple brought a new share of the processor market to Intel's table.

Second, while Apple is not the biggest customer, I'm 99&#37; sure it's in the top 5, and could even be as high as the third biggest customer by sales. The higher average price of Apple computers probably translates to a higher average price per processor - when you sell $400 boxes, and have to give MS an OS tax on every unit, there's not much left for hardware.

That is huge! It is rare that a long-time established company can do one deal, and have this new customer become one of its largest.

Finally, what Intel is really looking for is future growth OUTSIDE of its current lineup and the stale PC world, and I think this is what most excites Intel about Apple. It already owns the processor market, which is mature and potentially declining (in terms of revenues, not necessarily units shipped). What Intel needs is growth in new areas - markets that have not even been invented yet.

Believe me, if they could figure out a way to take their expertise in silicon fabrication and transfer that into ANY profitable business they'd do it in a second!

Along comes Apple, which is shifting to become a global consumer device company with the potential to invent these new markets. The success of the iPod, plus future hints of products like the appleTV and the iPhone, merely hint at the sort of markets Intel would like to shift into.

This hope of future products / markets is one of Apple's trump cards, and I'm sure Jobs played his hand well when negotiating with Intel.

[ffakr]

Huh.. Seems like I mentioned over and over that Apple doesn't like releasing processors where there isn't a clear delineation of speed by clock (like when the 603s clocked higher than the 604s but Apple wouldn't ship them).
:-)

This knocks off at least one of my bad prognostications.. I pick to loose my strong opinion that Apple won't go Intel last summer. :-P

[Eidorian]

Huh..1. Apple sells a lot of hardware overall but isn't as big as Dell
2. Apple does not have the image of being a stale market for computers
3. Intel is looking to break this image
4. ?????
5. Profit

[jhtrico1850]

Basically, because Apple wants them as soon as possible, they'll be getting ugly 150W parts. Around June/Q3, Intel will lower the 3GHz quads to an acceptable 120W (though it seems the Mac Pro can handle the 150W ones now).

[JeffDM]

Well to be honest I havent heard that either but there is a difference between fastest selling and how many are shipping from others.

Apple's models may sell greater volumes *per model* than on any other model of computer, but Apple basically has six models, but the likes of HP or Dell might have a dozen or two models each, not counting corporate variants, and so does pretty much every other two-bit player.

Basically, because Apple wants them as soon as possible, they'll be getting ugly 150W parts. Around June/Q3, Intel will lower the 3GHz quads to an acceptable 120W (though it seems the Mac Pro can handle the 150W ones now).

There's plenty of head room. A stock baseline model Mac Pro at max CPU consumes about 200W of the power supply's claimed 1000W power supply. I don't know what you can do to max out that power supply, it may be impossible except if something shorts out, but I think there are safeties for that.

[JeffDM]

But 3 GHz isn't the same for different chips.

I don't think that matters, the IPC for native code is very close between G5 and the Core 2-based Xeon, but it varies depending on the task. The 2003 3GHz "promise" implied that it would be a dual, now you have eight cores at that speed. It's kind of a moot point as there never was and never will be a 3GHz G5. There are and will be faster PPC chips but it will be for very dedictated tasks and not run OS X.

interesting indeed - but more indicative is that "We are indeed shipping a...[and] expect to see faster gigahertz speeds for our high-end [Core 2] Extreme PCs very soon, too," said Intel's Bill Kircos.

we can certainly expect new iMacs soon - hopefully with new design... :)

iMac can't use C2X chips, they aren't available in the notebook class. The case is probably too small to cool a Core 2 Extreme chip without getting noisy.

[JeffDM]

The high price is to be expected because:

1) Its Apple


Actually, for a workstation, it's dirt cheap. Except for the fact that most Mac Pros are sold without workstation graphics, Mac Pro is pretty much a workstation-type system. If you go to Dell or HP, I would bet that their 2.33GHz Octo systems might be about as expensive as Apple's 3.0GHz Octo.

[GothicChess.Com]

...is banking on that fact that Microsoft's 64-bit OS will continue to demonstrate that it is 2 to the 32nd power times as unreliable as its 32 bit operating system :)

OS X seems remarkably more stable to me as both a programmer and a user.

[Amdahl]

It's good to know that Apple and Intel still have a healthy relationship. 1+ years after Apple and IBM teamed up with the G5, things certainly didn't seem this cozy.

Maybe Apple is running out of processor makers to piss on.

[Eidorian]

iMac can't use C2X chips, they aren't available in the notebook class. The case is probably too small to cool a Core 2 Extreme chip without getting noisy.o rly? (http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom#Specialty_Models)

[twoodcc]

Haha, once again, Apple comes first.:)

yep :) i guess Steve worked his magic again....:apple:

[GanleyBurger]

Originally Posted by JeffDM
iMac can't use C2X chips, they aren't available in the notebook class. The case is probably too small to cool a Core 2 Extreme chip without getting noisy.

o rly?[/URL]


Does anyone still believe that we will get updated chips for MBPs or imacs by June? Anybody???:confused:

[PlaceofDis]

part of the reason i think Apple is the first to adopt this is because Dell, HP, and other PC manufacturers like to keep costs down, which means selling the low end chips, whereas Apple uses the higher ended chips to increase their performance.


i'm very glad that Intel and Apple have a good, healthy relationship, and i think they both are working together to progress forward. Intel wants to see more and more usage of their top-of-the-line products, which Apple will surely use, and Apple wants the growth and steady progression of the chips. its a pretty win-win situation for them both. i do hope with the Santa Rosa like that Apple adopts it just has fast though. we need even more updates!

[jhtrico1850]

iMac can't use C2X chips, they aren't available in the notebook class. The case is probably too small to cool a Core 2 Extreme chip without getting noisy.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2643&sSpec=&OrdCode=

What are those?:)

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=c2dm&page=1

Notice little Merom taking on the big boys:cool:

[shawnce]

part of the reason i think Apple is the first to adopt this is because Dell, HP, and other PC manufacturers like to keep costs down, which means selling the low end chips, whereas Apple uses the higher ended chips to increase their performance. It is simply that Apple has low enough volumes that they can use a limited early run like this while Dell and HP cannot.

[JeffDM]

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2643&sSpec=&OrdCode=

What are those?:)

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=c2dm&page=1

Notice little Merom taking on the big boys:cool:

I don't know what your point is, where in that processorfinder list is there a Core2Extreme Quad for mobiles? I don't see anything in your response that addresses what I said.

[GothicChess.Com]

I don't know what your point is, where in that processorfinder list is there a Core2Extreme Quad? I don't see anything in your response that addresses what I said.

I agree with Jeff here, this is not like a "SpecInt" page that lists processor speeds as a function of well-tested benchmarks.

Anyone know how fast this new 3 GHz box really is?

[AidenShaw]

Anyone know how fast this new 3 GHz box really is?

It depends.

For most applications, it will probably be the same or slightly slower than the dual-dual 3.0 GHz.

For some applications, the dual-dual-dual may be nearly twice as fast as the dual-dual. There probably aren't many applications in this category.

If you're running multiple cpu-intensive applications at once, it may be nearly twice as fast as the dual-dual.

These multiple application scenarios (or "multi-threaded workflows") are probably where people are most likely to see the added value.

If you have an application that can only use two cores effectively, but you have lots of jobs for that app, then the dual-dual-dual could run four instances simultaneously, all at more or less full speed.

So, just because AppX doesn't run any faster on the octo, doesn't mean that the octo isn't a good investment.

[dartzorichalcos]

For most applications, it will probably be the same or slightly slower than the dual-dual 3.0 GHz.

How can a 3Ghz Octo core Mac Pro be the same or slower than a 3Ghz Quad Core Mac Pro in some instances? Wouldn't the Octo Mac Pro be faster in everything than the Quad Mac Pro?

[guzhogi]

I wonder when/if Apple will put these in the xServe? We use xServes @ work.

[AidenShaw]

How can a 3Ghz Octo core Mac Pro be the same or slower than a 3Ghz Quad Core Mac Pro in some instances? Wouldn't the Octo Mac Pro be faster in everything than the Quad Mac Pro?

No, it can be slower.

Many programs are single-threaded, they work on one thing at a time, sequentially doing the steps of the problem, until the job is done. Sometimes this is due to uncreative programming, often it is due to the nature of the problem.

If you put such a program on an octo-core, one would think that it would be the same speed as a quad - but in fact there's overhead due to the additional cores, and the possibility that the OS will move the program around (effectively flushing the caches and slowing it down).

For example, think of a spreadsheet where the "total" is really the sum of ten other cells, each of which is the sum of an entire column of entries. And, in real life, many of the cells in the columns are sums and/or products of other cells in the same row. You can't calculate the total of the ten cells until *after* you've taken the sum of each of the ten columns. And you can't total the columns until you've totaled the rows.

So, solving the general case of finding out how many rows can be calculated in parallel, sending each of those out to 8 cores, then finding which columns can be done in parallel, sending that out to 8 cores - is very hard.
___

Other jobs are very easy to parallelize, and can easily be written for multiple cores.

An example of this would be an MPEG video encoder. MPEG streams have "key frames", which are complete frames (pictures) that subsequent frames are based on. Frames between key frames are "difference" frames - they contain information about how the current frame is different from those around it (usually much less data than a full frame).

It's common for a video stream to contain a key frame every second or so. It's therefore easy to parallelize - you chop the input stream into one-second chunks, and send them out to as many cores as you have available. In theory, a 3600 core machine could process an hour of video in the same time that it takes it to do one second. (In practice, I/O ruins that simplistic statement.)

Unfortunately, many programs (like video processors) weren't written to handle an arbitrary number of cores. They originally were written for a single core. When dual core (dual CPU) machines first came out - they were hacked to split the job into two pieces. When 4 core systems came out - another hack to handle 4 pieces at once.

What we'll see soon is new versions of some of these hacked to cut the job into 8 pieces. Maybe some will be rewritten to work on an arbitrary number of cores, but hacks are faster and cheaper than elegant redesign.

[jhtrico1850]

Ahh, I thought you meant the X in C2X was for Solo, Duo, or Quad, now it seems you mean it's for Extreme. There will be a Core 2 Extreme Mobile later, just not quad.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5918

[dartzorichalcos]

Ahh, I thought you meant the X in C2X was for Solo, Duo, or Quad, now it seems you mean it's for Extreme. There will be a Core 2 Extreme Mobile later, just not quad.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5918

Perhaps those processors could be in the next iMac update. Apple should make a bigger difference between iMacs and MacBooks(Pros). To me a 17" MacBook Pro and 17" iMac C2D seem almost the same in specs. The only difference I see is MacBook Pro's portability.

Edit: Thank you AidenShaw for the information.:)

[tachikomaone]

And also, the faster Xeon's decided that they wanted to do more interesting stuff as life in a Dell would be short and boring, and not so glamorous. :p

[BRLawyer]

Haha, once again, Apple comes first.:)

Yep, once again Apple is first...now PCs cannot even claim access to the latest hardware...what a bummer for them...:rolleyes:

[c.hilding]

Apple has been getting all sorts of special treatment from Intel ever since the switch, it seems... Intel must have had some particular reason that they really wanted to hook up with Apple, which I think would transcend current profits.

I think it has to do with image. Intel wants to leapfrog AMD by hanging with the cool guys, :apple: :cool: