PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming 45nm Xeon Processors from Intel




MacRumors
Jul 16, 2007, 11:55 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

DailyTech.com reports (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8065) on an internal memo from Intel listing the speeds for Intel's upcoming 45nm Xeon ("Penryn") processors due in late 2007.

"Penryn" is the next chip family based on the Core micro-architecture and will include a number of enhancements (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/03/28/intel-details-chip-roadmap/) along with a die-shrink to 45nm. The upcoming Penryn chips will be marketed under both the "Core" and "Xeon" brand names and encompass the entire spectrum of products (mobile, desktop, server).

The internal memo revealed that the 45nm Xeons (server class chips) will feature a 1333 MHz front-side bus and 6MB of L2 Cache per core. Processor speeds for the 45nm Quad-Core Xeons range from 2.33GHz - 3.16GHz. While Dual-core Xeons will also be produced, they will take a more "auxiliary role" with bulk of production focusing on the Quad-core chips.
One Intel engineer, who asked to not be named, claimed this focus on quad-core is a typical reaction to the market in general. "In the server space, there isn't much need for dual-core when we can go quad ... If your [applications] are threaded, there's no reason to use two cores when four are available."

Apple currently uses Intel's server-class chips (Xeons) in their Mac Pro and Xservers. The Mac Pro uses Intel's Xeon processor in 2.0 GHz - 3.0 GHz Dual Dual-Core (4 core total) configurations or 3.0 GHz Dual Quad-Core (8 core) configurations.

Despite the comparable clock speeds, the Penryn chip is said to include a number of performance boosts (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/17/intels-penryn-chip-boosts-speeds/) over similarly clocked processors.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/17/upcoming-45nm-xeon-processors-from-intel/)



Avicdar
Jul 16, 2007, 11:57 PM
I remember when IBM was talking about getting a groundbreaking thin (measured in nm) process and never seemed to manage it. Does anyone know if they ever managed to achieve it in the G5 class processors that are used in PS3's, etc?

Badandy
Jul 16, 2007, 11:57 PM
Less heat = good news.

mcarnes
Jul 16, 2007, 11:59 PM
Still too slow. :p

Eidorian
Jul 17, 2007, 12:00 AM
Might as well just until MWSF 2008 and live with my D800. :rolleyes:

DoFoT9
Jul 17, 2007, 12:17 AM
not bad not bad. im presuming the macpro will eventually have a dual quad core version of these in the next updates, or the following updates. would be a nice addition to the family :)

Royale w/cheese
Jul 17, 2007, 12:21 AM
Oh, so these are the wolfdales.

CalBoy
Jul 17, 2007, 12:24 AM
It's amazing, Moore's Law just keeps beating itself! By the time my brand new mbp gets old, Apple will be selling laptops with the ability to make breakfast and do all my housework :p

ricgnzlzcr
Jul 17, 2007, 12:26 AM
Mmm.....I want now

RBilRamZ
Jul 17, 2007, 12:40 AM
Honestly, how would this merit a negative rating?

ajhill
Jul 17, 2007, 12:59 AM
We should get some insight into Apple's Mac sales numbers when Intel reports earnings today. Most think the numbers will be very good, which would bode well for Apple. With as over hyped as the iPhone was it should prove to be boost to Mac sales and iPod sales and that's a very good thing.

The iPhone is great and all, but just remember that Mac and iPod sales are the biggest factors for profit, at least for now. It's going to be one heck of a week between now and next week when Apple's earnings come out.

Posted from an iPhone :)

isgoed
Jul 17, 2007, 01:07 AM
holy guacamoly! An actual mac rumor on macrumors!

Have you seen www.apple.com 's main page lately? iPhone all over the place? Like macs don't exist any more.

samh004
Jul 17, 2007, 01:10 AM
I know this detailed just Xeon's, but you think the mobile variants will also be mainly focused on quad-core too ?

That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.

Either way, looks all right for the Mac Pro owners of the future.

I guess this could be rated negative because the fastest quad-core right now is 3.0GHz and this update will only increase it by 160MHz (for each core), so it's not much compared to what it's at already.

CalBoy
Jul 17, 2007, 01:23 AM
I know this detailed just Xeon's, but you think the mobile variants will also be mainly focused on quad-core too ?

I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind. A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core. Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.

That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.

Ever since the G4, the difference has been shrinking dramatically. Frankly, I think that Apple thinks that the SR/C2D differnce is good enough. MBP sales obviously aren't that bad, as the base 2.2 seems to be sold out in a lot of places.

mhar4
Jul 17, 2007, 01:25 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

MrCrowbar
Jul 17, 2007, 01:37 AM
I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind. A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core. Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.

Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 C warmer, just when idling.

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

6 GHz = badass power consumption and heat. Apple did good.

CalBoy
Jul 17, 2007, 01:40 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

If there's anything that should have been learned during the PPC days, Ghz does not matter as much as how much the chip can do. Intel was the right move for Apple.

skellener
Jul 17, 2007, 01:41 AM
Honestly, how would this merit a negative rating?

Well, the chip news is great. When will Apple put it in the machines? How long must we wait? That's the only negative. It's been almost a year with no iMac or mini updates. The Mac Pro was last updated in April and all they did was add the Octo. Don't get me wrong...that's a slammin' machine! I don't have that kind of dough though. If Apple is still going to take so long between chip bumps, I'd like to see some price drops inbetween. We used to think it was because of the PPC architecture. Who are they going to blame now? The need too take a break from all the iPhone/AppleTV distractions and get back to the Mac. They've been ignoring it all year!

CalBoy
Jul 17, 2007, 01:42 AM
Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 C warmer, just when idling.

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.

Lone Deranger
Jul 17, 2007, 02:14 AM
The opening post does make mention of Penryn "encompassing the entire spectrum". So that includes their mobile line of processors.
Less power draw, less heat, faster clock speeds, more cores. Quad core in a new MBP? Yes please. :)

I really like Intel's philosophy in regards to cores. Why use two when you can have four, eight, sixteen etc... My multi-threaded rendering engines will be very grateful. :D

And I agree with skellener, the only unknown that remains is how fast Apple will move to adopt these new procs.

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.

rjc
Jul 17, 2007, 02:41 AM
The opening post does make mention of Penryn "encompassing the entire spectrum". So that includes their mobile line of processors. Less power draw, less heat, faster clock speeds, more cores. Quad core in a new MBP? Yes please.

Intel decided to make the Penryn name encompass their entire line of 45nm products, but my understanding is that the Penryn mobile chips aren't any more like the Xeon than Merom is like Xeon. It's just a shared code name. So don't expect four cores in the mobile chips, but expect a 45nm shrink of Merom with some important improvements, mostly in terms of power consumption & heat loss.

It looks like the mobile Penryn chips aren't coming out until Q1 2008. Does anyone have more information on those?

As for the differences between the Mac mobile lines: Santa Rosa is a big difference, and presumably the MBP will get Penryn around the same time the MB gets Santa Rosa. Most people who need the Pro version will know enough to realize that there's a substantial difference between the two.

I *think* the "intel was the worst decision Apple ever made" comment was a joke, but look at it this way: I bought a Powerbook G4 in 2005 with a G4 chip that was YEARS past its prime. Intel comes out with a new chip line every 2 years, with significant improvements (e.g. chipset, architecture) every year. At least for the mobile end of the lineup (and the iMac uses mobile chips too), Intel was the way to go. The bulk of Apples sales come from that end of the lineup. You can have the fastest G6 Power Mac in the world, but if Apple can't make competitive notebooks, you won't have any Macs for long.

luckyluke
Jul 17, 2007, 03:50 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

The Power 6 processor, not the PowerPC. Reminder:
PowerPC G5 = derivative of Power 4
all earlier PowerPC's = based on the Power 1 architecture

Actually the Power 5 already smokes any Intel processor found in a Mac. It even beats the workstation class processor in Intel lineup, the Itanium (see for example [1]).

This is what we are talking about here, workstation class processors. No way to put any of those even in a Mac Pro enclosure. Too much power consumption and heat as MrCrowbar answered you.

With your reasoning, Apple's move to RISC processor in the 90's would not have been toward PowerPC but toward the Alpha processors from Digital because they smoked the competition at the time. And the move to Intel would have resulted in putting Itaniums in the mac pro's.

Apple does not target that market at all

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2872

Bye Bye Baby
Jul 17, 2007, 04:00 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

And maybe you would like to point out where the mobile road map of a 6 ghz chip is please. At least you wouldn't have to worry about heating, hot water and ovens in a house with one of those babies. Come to think of it a house with one of those babies is likely to be a collection of carbon molecules! :rolleyes:

Cfour
Jul 17, 2007, 04:09 AM
I don't think that we'll see any updates to the mobile market for at least a year, maybe 2.
And also I feel that the move to Intel was the best descision Apple has made in recent times.

Cloudsurfer
Jul 17, 2007, 04:26 AM
Whoops, here they go again with the irregular decimal speeds! 2,33, 3,16... The MacBook Pro has such a clean lineup right now with 2,2 and 2,4.

nja247
Jul 17, 2007, 04:26 AM
Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 C warmer, just when idling.

However without programs designed for multi-core use, having four cores in a non-server environment at this time would not neccessarily equate to a real world gain in performance, hence why it's not the best idea for laptops at this time. It would certainly lead to some bragging rights, but probably not much else. Just google Core 2 Duo versus Core 2 Quad and you'll see that the Quad's don't blow the Dual's away unless the programs are designed to take advantage of multi-core.

I recall reading somewhere that the Penryn Core 2 Quad's will make there way into laptops, though into "desktop replacement models". Thus there must be a view that they will either use more power or produce more heat or both. I could see it as a possible CTO from Apple in the MacBook Pro's, but I'd bet that the base option on MacBooks with the new Penryn chips will still be the Core 2/3 Duo's, which will be faster, with more cache and a 800MHz or 1066MHz FSB.

RedTomato
Jul 17, 2007, 05:53 AM
I'd be more keen on buying it if it had 1337 FSB.

(looks at server in corner which runs on 100MHZ FSB. Yes it's old, but it works fine.)

pavetheforest
Jul 17, 2007, 06:21 AM
apple store down...

twoodcc
Jul 17, 2007, 06:22 AM
sounds good to me. looking forward to them

DoFoT9
Jul 17, 2007, 06:32 AM
apple store aus is up. albeit we are normally the last to get anything.... wonder how long itl be down for. i bet its just maintainence, as it says... updates would have to be advertised!!!! wouldnt they>>?<<

gnasher729
Jul 17, 2007, 06:33 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

Let me put it this way: I can afford to buy a Mac with eight 3.0GHz cores. I am quite sure you can't afford any computer with four 6.0GHz POWER cores.

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.

Actually, an iPod shuffle has TWO ARM processors running at very low clock speed exactly for that reason, to save energy. Half the power of one chip running at twice the speed.

pavelbure
Jul 17, 2007, 06:59 AM
The need too take a break from all the iPhone/AppleTV distractions and get back to the Mac. They've been ignoring it all year!

yeah i agree. it seems like the only exciting things this year from apple were a extremely overpriced phone/ipod and a glorified vcr.

apple store down...

they are adding iphone cases and other iphone related products.:p

failsafe1
Jul 17, 2007, 07:27 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

I don't want to see the notebook that this PPC chip will work in:eek:

AidenShaw
Jul 17, 2007, 07:44 AM
I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind.

A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core.

Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.

This is really a non-issue - you (or the Apple engineers) simply set the power management options so that (by default) two of the cores are powered off when on battery.

You get all of quad core goodness when plugged in, and better battery life and cooler running than now if you're OK with dual-core when on battery.

This really is a "have your cake and eat it" situation.

Thomas2006
Jul 17, 2007, 08:26 AM
That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.
I think the iMac will get the quad-core first and the MBP will get it after the next chipset is released next year. I agree that putting a quad-core in a MBP and a dual-core in a MB will separate the two lines even more, but I do not think Apple is too worried about putting a major gap in features between the MB and MBP. I see the MB getting a quad-core within a year after the MBP goes quad-core.


I guess this could be rated negative because the fastest quad-core right now is 3.0GHz and this update will only increase it by 160MHz (for each core), so it's not much compared to what it's at already.
What will make these new quad-cores different is that each core will have its own direct connection to the chipset instead of 2 dual-cores on one die sharing a connection. It is not really a raw speed improvement, but a more efficient design that will consume less power and run cooler.

AidenShaw
Jul 17, 2007, 08:35 AM
I think the iMac will get the quad-core first and the MBP will get it after the next chipset is released next year.

Keep the notebook chips in the iMac (for heat reasons), and put quads and some modest expandability (2 or 3 hard drives, 2nd optical, standard x16 PCIe graphics slot and additional x4 (in x8) PCIe slot) in a minitower.

Apple can separate the lines by expandability and number of cores, no need to worry about a problem with single core speeds not lining up.

iMac - 2 core, 4 GiB max, no easy expandability
Mac (minitower) - 4 core, 8 GiB max, some expandability
MacPro - 8 core, 32 GiB max, most expandable

iBunny
Jul 17, 2007, 09:03 AM
I'd be more keen on buying it if it had 1337 FSB.

Am I the only one who got this? Leet :D

mickeymikey
Jul 17, 2007, 09:04 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

You're right. Apple's Intel-based products are so bad, they can't even give them away.:rolleyes:

Keep the notebook chips in the iMac (for heat reasons), and put quads and some modest expandability (2 or 3 hard drives, 2nd optical, standard x16 PCIe graphics slot and additional x4 (in x8) PCIe slot) in a minitower.

Apple can separate the lines by expandability and number of cores, no need to worry about a problem with single core speeds not lining up.

iMac - 2 core, 4 GiB max, no easy expandability
Mac (minitower) - 4 core, 8 GiB max, some expandability
MacPro - 8 core, 32 GiB max, most expandable

Couldn't agree more. I love my Apple gear, but I feel like I'm caught in Goldie Locks and the Three Bears. The MacPro is "too big" and the iMac is "too small". For my needs, an "in between" product would be the way to go...just make sure it has enough video power to drive the 30".

ffakr
Jul 17, 2007, 09:19 AM
There will be no quad core laptops any time soon.

Apple could (and would) turn off cores [as they do now] when on battery but putting a quad core chip in an Apple aluminum laptop would mean that it would be too hot when thethered to the power brick and spun up. I burned my legs with my MacBook Pro already. Seriously. I ran it on my lap under load with pants on and the skin on my legs was sore from a 1st degree burn the next day.
In brief:
1st, Intel has a mobile chip roadmap and quad cores are not on it.
2nd, quad cores, even at 45nm are too hot for Apple's thin Aluminum cases when spun up.
3rd, Intel CHIPSETS put out more heat than the CPUs, that's why mobile chipsets run half the clock of desktops.. quad cores need the fast bus or they get bandwidth constrained.

Just an addition about PPC and Power.
PPC is based on IBM's Power [3 component chips in the 'processor'], technology from Motorola's RISC effors and Apple. Apple actually had Microprocessor developers on staff (they did develop all their chipsets afterall). Linley Gwennap from the Microprocessor Review used to work at Apple as an Engineer.
PowerPC is a subset of Power, including most of the Power ISA though it's relatively easy enough to work around the missing instructions. PowerPC is divergent from Power though. PowerPC code won't run on Power chips.. particularly Velocity Engine [accellerate framework..] which isn't present in Power.
The Power6 is related but it's NOT a PowerPC chip. You can't run Macintosh PPC code on that processor. They're 2nd or 3rd cousins not twins. :-)
Power6 [and Power5] are monsterous chips. Details are still sketchy on Power6 but as an example of what were talking about, the Power5 Multi-Chip-Module [i'm told] requires 500-600lbs of force to seat the chip pins into the massive socket. There's a special tool for it. They might have implemented a ZIF or contacts over the years but I clearly remember reading this from IBM.

ffakr.

cr2sh
Jul 17, 2007, 09:27 AM
I don't want to really subscribe to this thread... but if there's any chance whatsoever that my addition to it will expedite Apple's getting of, or release of, these chips... then so be it.

Baby needs a new Mac Pro.

AidenShaw
Jul 17, 2007, 09:50 AM
There will be no quad core laptops any time soon.

http://laptops.engadget.com/2007/06/03/intel-reveals-quad-core-laptop-chip-in-the-pipeline-for-2008/

"Confirming something that we had already seen hints of, Intel has announced that it is looking forward to quad core laptops hitting the scene throughout 2008."

No arguments with the rest of your post though - seems reasonable.

On the other hand, though, Apple could easily add the Macbook Workstation to the lineup - a desktop replacement system which goes for power over portability.

Note that I said add, doesn't mean that the MBP has to go away!

Many people in the media world would lap these up for mobile studio work. These guys have tons (sometimes literally) of camera and audio gear, and always work on AC power. A 4 or 5 kg, 3cm to 4cm thick laptop with quad cores, 4 GiB to 8 GiB of RAM, and two spindles wouldn't weigh them down. Heck, make it in both 17" and 20" sizes.

Add the odd gamer, and the desktop replacement market (the people who want the computer out-of-sight when not in use - they think an iMac is ugly compared to a portable in a drawer), and Apple would have a big profit stream.

suzerain
Jul 17, 2007, 09:55 AM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

Uhh...does that 6 Ghz chip run Windows?

I think you're underestimating the fact that switching to Intel means Windows users can freely switch machines without losing their critical apps.

And I think the fact that Apple's mobile market share has doubled inside of a year is pretty much proof of this.

pohl
Jul 17, 2007, 10:19 AM
However without programs designed for multi-core use, having four cores in a non-server environment at this time would not neccessarily equate to a real world gain in performance...

I think this point is overplayed in multicore discussions, and not strictly true anyway.

Most people run more than one application at a time, and the operating system is constantly doing things in the background, so even if every application only had one thread of execution one still gets benefit from multiple processors or cores. Moreover, we're not even "without programs designed for multi-core use". If you open ThreadViewer.app and attach it to applications that you use, you may be surprised to see several threads of execution already there. And we know that this will increase with Leopard.

AidenShaw
Jul 17, 2007, 10:24 AM
I think this point is overplayed in multicore discussions, and not strictly true anyway.

Most people run more than one application at a time, and the operating system is constantly doing things in the background, so even if every application only had one thread of execution one still gets benefit from multiple processors or cores.

For example, right now I'm copying a 50 GB virtual machine .VMDK file from one machine to another across my home Gigabit network.

The file server (2.6 GHz P4) is pegged at about 95% CPU usage in the file serving and TCP/IP stack. Very slow to respond to any screen clicks.

The machine grabbing the file, however, is a quad 2.66 Kentsfield, and it's as snappy as ever. If you look at the CPU monitor, though, you see that one core is very busy - again in the filesystem and network code.

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 17, 2007, 10:37 AM
so now my servers will make my room feel like in in a volcano instead of in Hell.... nice :)

Eidorian
Jul 17, 2007, 10:57 AM
There will be no quad core laptops any time soon.

Apple could (and would) turn off cores [as they do now] when on battery but putting a quad core chip in an Apple aluminum laptop would mean that it would be too hot when thethered to the power brick and spun up. I burned my legs with my MacBook Pro already. Seriously. I ran it on my lap under load with pants on and the skin on my legs was sore from a 1st degree burn the next day. When did they do that? On battery you're going to see lower clock speeds but you're not going to see a core shut down.

AidenShaw
Jul 17, 2007, 11:06 AM
When did they do that? On battery you're going to see lower clock speeds but you're not going to see a core shut down.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/03/29/intel_penryn_nehalem_and_the_future/1

"C6, the final power down state, is an almost complete shutdown of the CPU. There is a significant drop in core voltage and everything is now switched off to maximise battery life."

dolphin842
Jul 17, 2007, 11:07 AM
The internal memo revealed that the 45nm Xeons (server class chips) will feature a 1333 MHz front-side bus and 6MB of L2 Cache per core.

Just a potential correction... the DailyTech article says that, for the Xeons, "Each die features 6MB of L2 cache -- giving the two dice quad-core Harpertown Xeons a total of 12MB of L2 cache." So if I'm understanding this correctly, it's not 6MB of cache per core, but rather per die (2 cores). The thought of having a 8-core Mac Pro with 48MB of L2 cache was just too good to be true :D (but the actual 24MB we'll apparently see is nothing to laugh at either!)

Eidorian
Jul 17, 2007, 11:11 AM
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/03/29/intel_penryn_nehalem_and_the_future/1

"C6, the final power down state, is an almost complete shutdown of the CPU. There is a significant drop in core voltage and everything is now switched off to maximise battery life."I know about future. The closest we have right now with Intel Dynamic Acceleration (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/09/intel_santa_rosa_mobile_platform/1).

EagerDragon
Jul 17, 2007, 11:33 AM
Still too slow. :p

Computers can never be too fast. The bar always raises after you get used to the latest and greatest.
:eek:

EagerDragon
Jul 17, 2007, 12:01 PM
Wow, I just need to wait another 32 years to get my MacBook Pro with the 2.5 watts 64 core chip and no fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, where the heck I left that (hope) stool?
Wonder if I live to see it.:eek:

jhtrico1850
Jul 17, 2007, 12:40 PM
These are really good power consumption numbers:)

http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=5116
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors

150W (3GHz) and 120W (2.666GHz) go to 3.16GHz/120W/45nm.
80W quad go from 2.33GHz@65nm to 3GHz@45nm.
50W quad go from 1.86GHz@65nm to 2.66GHz@45nm.

65W dual goes from 2.66GHz@65nm to 3.33GHz@45nm
40W dual goes from 2.33GHz@65nm to 3.16GHz@45nm.

cliffjumper68
Jul 17, 2007, 12:56 PM
Mmm.....I want now

My thoughts exactly, i wonder if you will be able to pair 4 quads in one system. Having a server farm equivalent under the hood would be great for my stats analysis programs.

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 17, 2007, 01:49 PM
Wow, I just need to wait another 32 years to get my MacBook Pro with the 2.5 watts 64 core chip and no fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, where the heck I left that (hope) stool?
Wonder if I live to see it.:eek:

gulp! i'll be 52..... :(

shamino
Jul 17, 2007, 02:52 PM
I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind. A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core.
Not necessarily. Depending on the clock speeds and other capabilities, it might not. Keep in mind that Intel already has tech that can power-down idle cores and even functional units within a core. These configurations could all be controlled by firmware, configured by the Energy Saver preference panel.

I distinctly remember reading about Intel working on a "Core 2 Quad" for mobile/desktop use. It won't be a Xeon, but nobody is expecting to put one of those in a laptop.
6 GHz = badass power consumption and heat. Apple did good.
POWER is not PowerPC. Nobody is making PPC chips at those speeds.

And for the market where POWER is being sold (high-end workstations, mainframes, and other big-iron), the power consumption and heat is likely acceptable, especially when compared against the previous generation of chips used for those kinds of products.
Couldn't agree more. I love my Apple gear, but I feel like I'm caught in Goldie Locks and the Three Bears. The MacPro is "too big" and the iMac is "too small". For my needs, an "in between" product would be the way to go...just make sure it has enough video power to drive the 30".
That's one way to look at it. Another is to say "I've budgeted $x for a new computer" and look at how much computer you can get for your budget, without regard for today's need (working with the assumption that your needs will grow over time anyway.)

When I bought my PowerMac G4, I spent about $3500. If I needed to replace it today, that same $3500 can get me a nicely equipped quad-core Mac Pro. If I don't need to replace it until next year, it will buy even more of a computer. Do I need that much power? Probably not, but if I'm within my expected budget, then it's not really a problem. It just means it'll be a long time before I need to upgrade again.

mahonmeister
Jul 17, 2007, 03:03 PM
I wonder if AMD will have any processors that can compete with intel in the high end by the time Penryn hits the market.

AidenShaw
Jul 17, 2007, 05:54 PM
I wonder if AMD will have any processors that can compete with intel in the high end by the time Penryn hits the market.

Expect to see headlines about how wonderful Barcelona is, with great benchmarks on scientific floating point apps.

Don't expect to see great numbers for dual socket Barcelona systems running multi-threaded or IO intensive applications. AMD's architecture of using two memory controllers connected with a serial bus has some issues when the program runs on one socket and the memory happens to be connected to the other socket.

Those great scientific benchmarks are achieved by running 8 separate copies of the program, with each copy and its memory forced to a single CPU. (Which is not unreasonable for scientific cluster computing, by the way, it's just not representative of lots of other interesting applications.)

SiliconAddict
Jul 17, 2007, 08:02 PM
Honestly, how would this merit a negative rating?

My guess: A bunch of Anti-Intel, pro PPC nutcases. I still run across one every so often in the flesh. It it quite remarkable that this species of Mac fan still survives. I mean the proof is in the enhancements. IBM or freescale would never be moving at this pace, nor would the switchers who are virtualizing Windows to allow them to go both ways. Apple would never be where they are right now without the transition to x86. And yet there are still people who think it was a bad idea. :rolleyes:

Expect to see headlines about how wonderful Barcelona is, with great benchmarks on scientific floating point apps.

Don't expect to see great numbers for dual socket Barcelona systems running multi-threaded or IO intensive applications. AMD's architecture of using two memory controllers connected with a serial bus has some issues when the program runs on one socket and the memory happens to be connected to the other socket.

Those great scientific benchmarks are achieved by running 8 separate copies of the program, with each copy and its memory forced to a single CPU. (Which is not unreasonable for scientific cluster computing, by the way, it's just not representative of lots of other interesting applications.)


the best quote I've seen from AMD....

To add insult to injury, when DailyTech benchmarked the pre-production 1.6 GHz Barcelona, the CPU did not match Intel's 65nm quad-core offering clock-for-clock. AMD engineers stress to DailyTech that this benchmark was premature, and that final silicon and software will allow for SSE optimizations and better performance.

The scary part is that you could almost directly pull that quote from Intel during the dark days of the P4. Its all smoke and mirrors.

SMM
Jul 17, 2007, 08:37 PM
yeah i agree. it seems like the only exciting things this year from apple were a extremely overpriced phone/ipod and a glorified vcr.

.:p

That statement demonstrates a very limited perspective.

Umbongo
Jul 17, 2007, 08:41 PM
Pricing revealed

X5460 (3.16GHz) $1,172
E5450 (3.00GHz) $851
E5440 (2.83GHz) $690
E5430 (2.66GHz) $455
E5420 (2.50GHz) $316
E5410 (2.33GHz) $256
E5405 (2.xxGHz) $209

Current Prices:

X5355 2.66 GHz $1,172
E5345 2.33 GHz $851
E5335 2.00 GHz $690
E5320 1.86 GHz $455
E5310 1.60 GHz $316

5160 3.00 GHz $851
5150 2.66 GHz $690
5140 2.33 GHz $455
5130 2.00 GHz $316
5120 1.86 GHz $256
5110 1.60 GHz $209

July 29th Pricing:
X5365 3.00 GHz $1,172 (not comming until August 12th)
X5355 2.66 GHz $744
E5345 2.33 GHz $455
E5335 2.00 GHz $316
E5320 1.86 GHz $256
E5310 1.60 GHz $209

MacinDoc
Jul 18, 2007, 12:22 AM
Expect to see headlines about how wonderful Barcelona is, with great benchmarks on scientific floating point apps.

Don't expect to see great numbers for dual socket Barcelona systems running multi-threaded or IO intensive applications. AMD's architecture of using two memory controllers connected with a serial bus has some issues when the program runs on one socket and the memory happens to be connected to the other socket.

Those great scientific benchmarks are achieved by running 8 separate copies of the program, with each copy and its memory forced to a single CPU. (Which is not unreasonable for scientific cluster computing, by the way, it's just not representative of lots of other interesting applications.)
Sounds a lot like how Apple trumpeted the performance of the VT G5 cluster when it was built.

AidenShaw
Jul 18, 2007, 02:29 PM
Sounds a lot like how Apple trumpeted the performance of the VT G5 cluster when it was built.

Still at OSX 10.3.9, by the way...

http://www.arc.vt.edu/arc/SystemX/index.php

ghiangelo
Jul 18, 2007, 04:32 PM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

the Power 6 is in a class of it's own. it's a supercharged multi-core cpu design for servers and dedicated super computing clusters that can theoretically break all processing records by huge margins. it's also bloody hot and not designed for a desktop.

intel has the right idea with quad cores anyway - fast, cool, portable, available and designed for future multi threading.

IBM is only interested in cutting the time of a nuclear fusion test model from 1 year to 3 months, and to possibly replace all existing internet hardware exclusively.

Intel just wants you to stream GrooveSalad, burn a DVD and run a blur filter on a 70MB file at the same time without slowing down... on a good day even a Strip Saver...

tristan
Jul 18, 2007, 05:18 PM
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

I used to have a PowerPC. I also used to have stock options and watch Beavis and Butthead. The 90s are over man.

thunng8
Jul 18, 2007, 06:47 PM
There will be no quad core laptops any time soon.

The Power6 is related but it's NOT a PowerPC chip. You can't run Macintosh PPC code on that processor. They're 2nd or 3rd cousins not twins. :-)
Power6 [and Power5] are monsterous chips.
ffakr.

Read up on the difference between POWER and PowerPC before you sprout this rubbish. POWER since POWER3 has been implemented the full PowerPC instruction set i.e. anything PowerPC can run, POWERx can run as well. Linux distributions for PowerPC and POWER are the same. Only reason it will not able able to run MacOSX is due to the "firmware" that is controlled by Apple, not the instruction set.

shamino
Jul 19, 2007, 10:06 AM
Only reason it will not able able to run MacOSX is due to the "firmware" that is controlled by Apple, not the instruction set.
And that this chip would catch fire if installed in any system as small as a Mac.

But let's ignore facts. Obviously, the instruction set is the only thing that matters. A mainframe is nothing more than a laptop in a big case, right?

Before you start abusing others for being less than perfect, you ought to make sure you also measure up to those standards.

tristan
Jul 19, 2007, 02:45 PM
So, where exactly can Apple buy 1 million mobile Power6 processors for next quarter's MacBook and MacBook Pro sales for Intel-competitive prices?

The CPU is the heart of the product and Apple needs reliable supply at competitive prices in order to stay in business. Look at the LED display shortage. If it gets worse, Apple could lose $100m of sales next quarter. Intel is not only the most reliable supplier, but they also happen to have the best product at this point.