8-Core Mac Pro with Clovertown... in November?

[MacRumors]

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

Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176) that Apple is indeed planning on introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro using the Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors from Intel.

The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown.

As it stands, the release of the eight-core Mac Pro hinges on both Intel and Apple. But following Intel's mid-Nov. quad-core Xeon launch, the ball should be completely on Apple's side of the court. It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season.


Details of the Clovertown processors were revealed in September (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926002955.shtml), showing two versions of the chip that support the same 1333MHz bus as the Mac Pro. These processors (X5355 and E5345) run at 2.66 and 2.33GHz respectively.

Indeed, the current Mac Pros appear to be directly compatible with the new processors. In September, AnandTech replaced (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913074907.shtml) two Dual-Core Xeon (Woodcrest) processors from a Mac Pro with samples of two Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors and "they worked just fine".

[Drizzt]

Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...

[xiaoyu04]

wow, that was a fast announcement? if i remember correctly the clovertons come out mid nov don't they?

[spicyapple]

If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.

[steebu]

Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon?

[zwida]

OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.

I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)

[QCassidy352]

Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...

No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting

Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.

[clintob]

This is starting to sound like the war of the razors...

Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.

Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.

... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)

[parenthesis]

Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?

If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)

[arn]

Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...

seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.

arn

[spicyapple]

seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
It would be the first for Apple. :cool:

[clintob]

Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?

If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)
I personally don't care one way or the other, but I think the major difference here is volume. The C2D was a VERY high-demand item, and Apple wanted to wait until there was sufficient supply to handle the orders they would receive. The 8-core MacPro is a pretty specialized item, so the quanitites are nowhere near as big an issue.

[kainjow]

OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.

[carlos700]

No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting

Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.

In all fairness, the MacBook Pro received two minor speed updates:
1>> 1.67GHz / 1.83GHz to 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz
2>> 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz to 2.0GHz / 2.16GHz

[arn]

It would be the first for Apple. :cool:

If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...

so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.

arn

[macridah]

I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.

[mcarnes]

8. Pfft. I'm holding out for 64 cores.

[Multimedia]

I am so there with the cash ready a willing to fly out the window to Apple's account sooner than Apple can say:

"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)

[CTYankee]

Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.

Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.

I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.

[prograham]

Well based on nothing really except I've been using apple a long time, worked in their retail stores for a while, and know how they like to be cutting edge (yet dependable and pretty), I'd say count on 8 cores for xmas. Maybe not november, but maybe so. I think the thought alone of HP and Dell releasing prosumer workstations with 8 cores leaving Apple behind when Vista launches is just too much to let slide for Apple.

[Multimedia]

If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.Bulletin. Many thousands of us knew it would be this soon. :)

[whatever]

I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
Don't worry about it.

There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.

Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).

Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.

Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?

Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.

[ksz]

I am so there with the cash ready a willing to fly out the window to Apple's account sooner than Apple can say:

"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
If it has hardware RAID and eSATA I'll be ordering mine within seconds of the announcement...well, after checking the price of course.

[gugy]

I am so there with the cash ready a willing to fly out the window to Apple's account sooner than Apple can say:

"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)

Yeah, I might do the same.
The only thing that keeps me using my Quad G5 now is the fact Adobe CS2 is not universal and the memory price of the new Mac Pro's are soooo high.
But the octo-core for sure will be faster than the quad G5 for non universal Adobe CS2 apps.
Interesting decision to make.
I'll make my mind when this really happens.

[whatever]

Well based on nothing really except I've been using apple a long time, worked in their retail stores for a while, and know how they like to be cutting edge (yet dependable and pretty), I'd say count on 8 cores for xmas. Maybe not november, but maybe so. I think the thought alone of HP and Dell releasing prosumer workstations with 8 cores leaving Apple behind when Vista launches is just too much to let slide for Apple.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.

Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.

[Multimedia]

If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...

so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.

That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.

[killr_b]

I can't really decide what to think of an 8 core mac pro.

Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.

In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.

HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?

[mahonmeister]

I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.

And you shall continue to enjoy it. Like Arn has stated, this likely isn't replacing any current configurations, just adding to them.

This seems really exciting. All these cores are gonna pump out some serious power. Now if they could just mash together that processor that IBM made at like 50GHz (I think they cooled it with dry ice or something) with a multi core processor they'd have something! Bring it.

[jholzner]

I can't really decide what to think of an 8 core mac pro.

Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.

In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.

HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?

True but that new color correction software Apple just bought has some pretty steep requirements. I bet the next version of FCP will really be able to take serious advantage of their new wares. Also, I bet Leopard is going to be optimized to the limit for this type of hardware. Just my guess.

[mdntcallr]

This is starting to sound like the war of the razors...

Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.

Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.

... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
S
Dude, your so funnnnY!!
but this is a happy time, tech advancements are a great thing.

this is happily something better than how long it took with G5 to update.

Hope they do an update with Blu-Ray option.

[Lepton]

It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?

Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?

-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)

[killr_b]

True but that new color correction software Apple just bought has some pretty steep requirements. I bet the next version of FCP will really be able to take serious advantage of their new wares. Also, I bet Leopard is going to be optimized to the limit for this type of hardware. Just my guess.

I hope so man, 'cause it's like having a ferrari and driving the speed limit.
Also can't wait to see what happens with the new CC aquisitions.
FCP color corection never impressed me.

[ricgnzlzcr]

Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.

That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.

I would understand how your Quad G5 is getting a tad on the slow side;) . I feel pretty intense with my single 1 ghz G4.

Unlike me though, you actually require that processor power. Can't wait till you post your impressions of your OctoMac within an hour of getting it!!

[Multimedia]

Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?What planet do you live on? Apple not only aggressively adopted C2D into the iMac radically faster than anyone expected, they now ship top speed 2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros in quantity as well only less than 2 months later.If history serves as a template for the future, then I wouldn't expect anything new until after the holiday season (even though the Mac Pro isn't a consumer device, companies usually aren't looking to spend money on new machines right before the new year starts)You are out of touch with reality parenthesis. Certain professions can't get enough cores soon enough. These are industries with workflows known in the business as Multi-Threaded Workloads. It was discussed in depth at the Intel Developers Forum in September. Demand is pent-up for the 8-core Mac Pro and Apple knows it.I personally don't care one way or the other, but I think the major difference here is volume. The C2D was a VERY high-demand item, and Apple wanted to wait until there was sufficient supply to handle the orders they would receive. The 8-core MacPro is a pretty specialized item, so the quanitites are nowhere near as big an issue.Zactly. But they are still going to be in the tens of thousands and demand will begin very high. This is going to happen before Black Friday - November 24.

[scottlinux]

I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.

I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.

[Cybix]

This is starting to sound like the war of the razors...

Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.

Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.

... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)

:D i love it! hahahaha...

oh, and I agree.

[Multimedia]

It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?

Say, aren't the new dual quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?

-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)Yes Clovertown is pin compatible with teh XServe as well and let's hope they come out at same time. :)

[ricgnzlzcr]

I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.

I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.

I think price won't be as big of a factor as you'd imagine. These computers are directed towards pros. I'm sure those who need the power will continually purchase at this price. Not too long ago, the stock high-end powermac was about $3500. If they build it, people will buy it:p .

[spicyapple]

HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.

[Multimedia]

I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.

I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.Not pricy at all. 2.33GHz Clovertown are same price as 3GHz Woodies $851. 2.66GHz Clovertown's only $1172 each.

So premium for 2.66GHz 8-Core will likely not be more than + $1100 - $3599. That's down to just over $450 per same speed core from the current price of four 2.66GHz Xeon cores for $625 each.

[ender78]

What I see Apple doing is milking their pricing agreements with Intel. The only reason that I can see Apple sticking out so long with Core Duo is that after the Core 2 Duo processors were released, Intel cut prices on the older chips. Intel's manufacturing pipelines are short [announce processor , produce, move on]. Apple must have gotten a great deal on the older Duos [I know they are not old processors, just no longer top of the line].

What did Apple have to loose by delaying the introduction of the Core 2 Duo [the sales of 10 machines whose sales went to Dell?]. I suspect that anyone that held out for the Core 2 Duo, bought one in the last two days, and did not go to a competitor. Let's not forget that while every other vendor may have announced a Core 2 Duo notebook in the last two months, Apple likely took more orders in the last two days, than some of those vendors have had in the last two months. Apple now has the x86 pipeline open to them, they will make a move when it benefits them financially, and not before.

I personally expect the the 8 Core machine at Macworld. There is little reason for Apple to release the machine before then. I'm itching for a Quad but can easily wait [especially since I do not expect a price premium on the machine, the next processor will cost little more than the four core version today]. I am also hoping to see Leopard at Macworld.

[AppliedVisual]

But the octo-core for sure will be faster than the quad G5 for non universal Adobe CS2 apps.

Unfortunately it won't be... Adobe's software in its current CS2 form isn't multithreaded and the only way you're going to get the use of multiple cores is running multiple programs at the same time. So when it comes to running Photoshop, a 3GHz quad-core will run it faster than a 2.66GHz 8-core. Hopefully we'll see some multithreaded enhancements with the CS3 update. Otherwise, buying a Mac Pro for Adobe's software is somewhat overkill unless you have specialized PS filters that are multithreaded to use the multiple CPU cores. For now the hardware has dramatically out-paced the software side of the industry and so we wait... Outside of video encoding apps, 3D rendering, visualization and scientific computing apps, most everything else out there is not multithreaded (which means multi-core ignorant). Know your software before you plunk down your money.

For me, I'm a 3D rendering kinda guy so the 8-core Mac Pro can't get here fast enough. Although, I just bought an MBP about 3 weeks ago since I needed one and my wife needed a Macbook, but I handed that down to her and ordered me a C2D MBP yesterday... And I bought another Maya license, so the budget is a little thin right now.

[killr_b]

What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.

That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.

[Dark]

I personally really want this revision to made before the holiday season. I'm really in the market for a Mac-Pro and this would be the perfect Christmas/Birthday Gift. It would really upset me to get one and then shortly after Christmas the update it made. I think Apple needs to make better marketing decisions as to when the update their product lines.

[shawnce]

Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon? IBM has been shipping 8 core POWER5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5) in a single MCM with 36 MiBs of L3 cache for a couple of years now. IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER) has a long history with these types of things. ...of course they cost far more then what Intel is putting out in the near future.

[MacinDoc]

Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.

[twoodcc]

well i must say i'd be kinda suprized to see an update this early with apple. especially since i just bought a mac pro. i'd be mad if the prices of the one i just bought goes down

[bigwig]

8. Pfft. I'm holding out for 64 cores.
You could just get one of these (http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/).

It supports up to 512 processors under one instance of Linux and as much as 128TB of globally shared memory.

Just convince Apple to buy SGI.

[bigwig]

Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.

MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.

[Multimedia]

MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.I don't believe you. I use applications that want 3-4 cores EACH. And I need to run 2-4 of them simultaneously. No way is Apple going to ship dual Clovertowns if they provide no benefit. I think AppliedVisual also does not believe you. In other words:

You may be mistaken.

[Multimedia]

well i must say i'd be kinda suprized to see an update this early with apple. especially since i just bought a mac pro. i'd be mad if the prices of the one i just bought goes downIt is not early. You should have known about this since August. I did.

[paeza]

Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess

[Analog Kid]

I can't think of what I'd possibly need that kind of power for here at home, but just the extravagance of having 8 CPUs ticking away is tempting in itself.

[Analog Kid]

Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
Not a half bad idea really...

[mhar4]

That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.

[Analog Kid]

Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon?
How many cores in a Cell? Nine, depending on how you count...

[kresh]

Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.

Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.

Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!

[CTYankee]

That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.

No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....

[BJNY]

Any chance the ATI X1950 will be CTO as well?

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2858

[Marx55]

ONE THING IS CLEAR:

Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.

Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.

And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.

JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.

[Scarlet Fever]

JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
sounds awesome :D

but with my macbook containing 1,024,000 pixels, will you fund it for me please? :p

[dante@sisna.com]

OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.

I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)

Many of the applications that graphics, audio, and video producers use do take advantage of the extra power. It just happens differently than one might think -- it has via better multitasking. It is up to the user to learn how to use quad and eight core boxes to improve production.

We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.

DJO

[dante@sisna.com]

Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.

I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.

I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.

Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.

Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.

No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.

We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.

Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.

[MacBoobsPro]

I had a sneaky feeling since August this might happen so I decided not to take the plunge with a MacPro straight away. :D

*gleefully rubs hands in anticipation*

*shuts down g5, goes to bathroom, brushes teeth, goes to bedroom, gets changed. Goes down stairs. Jumps in car. Drives to work. Gets to work. Turns on 'ancient' G3. Sighs loudly*

*Logs back in to MacRumors*

[dante@sisna.com]

Bulletin. Many thousands of us knew it would be this soon. :)

Yep we did. I expected Octo way back in July/August.

[inkswamp]

If history serves as a template for the future

Honestly, with Apple, history doesn't serve as much of a template for the future when you think about it.

[Macinposh]

No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.

Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?


We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.


Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?

[Applejuice]

anyone know how loud the new 8-core pros might be? probably impossible to speculate, but i would imagine that it will produce more heat and need better cooling than any of the current offerings.

[aegisdesign]

That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.

Maybe the drives couldn't feed the CPUs fast enough. This is going to be a problem going forward unless Apple gets hardware RAID in there,

[aegisdesign]

MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.

This may have been true prior to 10.4 in which OSX had essentially two funnels for processes to go to. In 10.4 they expanded that and in 10.5 they're taking it even further with features like separating OpenGL rendering on to a second CPU core even if the app isn't multithreaded.

[aegisdesign]

JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.

I've used one. Back in the 1980s, beginning of the 90s. The low end model had 1024 processors and the high end model 4096 processors. It was a pig to program. When drawing on the screen you split the task at hand up into many parallel threads each drawing a part of the screen. Not quite 1 CPU per pixel but you get the idea.

[AidenShaw]

Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.

Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)

[BenRoethig]

If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...

so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.

arn

Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...

[mhar4]

No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
My point exactly.

[DrGruv1]

but it's still great to see :)


should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)

[paulvee]

I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?

[BenRoethig]

I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?

The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.

[Alpinism]

I am waiting for a quad core MP and a copy of FCS. I hope they make it before Xmas. THen, it would indeed be a glorious Xmas.

The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner

[~Shard~]

Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D

[Multimedia]

Many of the applications that graphics, audio, and video producers use do take advantage of the extra power. It just happens differently than one might think -- it has via better multitasking. It is up to the user to learn how to use quad and eight core boxes to improve production.

We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.

DJOOn the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.

Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.

Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.

No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.

We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.

Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.

Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p

[Queso]

Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.

Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)

[shawnce]

MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings.

Tiger was the first big step in breaking the monolithic threading model of the BSD layer that was inherited from BSD (not a MACH issue). Leopard is going beyond that in a few key areas, for example to allow better efficiency on high-core count per socket systems.

XNU handles multiple cores just fine but improvements can always be made and they are being made.

8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.

That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.

[AppliedVisual]

Just convince Apple to buy SGI.

At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.

Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.

[AppliedVisual]

I don't believe you. I use applications that want 3-4 cores EACH. And I need to run 2-4 of them simultaneously. No way is Apple going to ship dual Clovertowns if they provide no benefit. I think AppliedVisual also does not believe you. In other words:

You may be mistaken.

Looks like others have addressed it, but OSX along with the Tiger kernel updates, scales pretty good. Every bit as good as any Linux implementation and probably as good or better than WinXP.

They will ship Clovertowns as soon as they can... As I've said, it's a software issue, so know your software before you choose 8-core vs. 4-core. But there's plenty of software out their that can benefit from the 8-core system. Like I've said, Photoshop itself isn't multithreaded/multi-core capable directly, but various plug-ins are. It's also possible to spread multiple batch instances across CPU cores, so even though much of our current software is limited (or just plain multi-core ignorant), there's still ways to utilize the multiple cores within just about any production workflow.

[AidenShaw]

Every bit as good as any Linux implementation and probably as good or better than WinXP.
Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....

[AppliedVisual]

The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.

Anandtech did a test with two Clovertown engineering samples several weeks ago. Seemed to work just fine. The only thing I could see as an issue is the BIOS/EFI might need an update in addition to simply swapping the CPUs.

[AppliedVisual]

Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....

Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...

BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.

[Multimedia]

Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010

You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:

[MacBoobsPro]

16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010

You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:

4 years. Cant wait. My emailing exploits will just zip along.

How many chips would it span though?

[AppliedVisual]

128 cores by 2010... That might be a little ambitious. I'd definitely buy one though. ;)

[Sm0kejaguar]

After much debate and anguish i finally decided to order my Mac Pro yesterday... figures this would come up now.... /sigh. I am assuming they will only add a higher end config, but honestley... do any of us know?

[paulvee]

I'm actually pretty thrilled with my new Dual 3.0 Xeon. Should hold me in good stead for a couple of years of heavy video crunching and motion graphics, as well as photoshop once it goes native. In the meantime, I use my Dual G5 2.0 for that.

And when the Octos get updated in a year and a half, I can be the first to jump on that bandwagon.

[mdntcallr]

I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...

the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.

which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p

[Sm0kejaguar]

I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...

the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.

which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p


Thats what i'm worried about!!! Ahhhhh!!! guess i can always wait a month and pay my 250 dollar restock!

[dante@sisna.com]

Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?

Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?

No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.

Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.

Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.

[suneohair]

I highly doubt this will be a simple swap. The Clovertowns are quite expensive, not to mention slower in terms of raw clock speed, so expect it to be a high priced upgrade.

[dante@sisna.com]

Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.

Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p

You are welcome.

I have been reading your Mac Rumors posts for a long time and I am amazed at the bashing you take sometimes. I recall the days when people complained of Apple boxes being "too slow."

Now the posts I read on supposed pro sites like Mac Rumors are filled with users chiding one's need for speed -- I get the feeling that many of the users in this forum do simply have the workload to truly push these machines -- there is almost a sense of envy at users who do.

My suggestion to users feeling this envy is as follows: Learn new skills. If you make your living using a Mac as we do, then evolve with your box. Buy new software. Seek out new clients who want higher end multimedia for web and other distribution. Push the market to evolve.

Anyhow, I will contribute as much as my schedule allows.

Best regards to all.

Dante

[shawnce]

Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.

Just wanted to note...

It is easy to confuse a single thread bouncing among available cores as it gets scheduled (which happens easily on Mac OS X) and multiple threads executing in parallel on multiple cores if you look at per CPU utilization graphs because of sampling artifacts.

In top you want to look at "CPU usage" or in activity monitor look at "% Idle". If idle CPU usage is close to zero then you are truly utilizing the cores in your system which often implies that the application you are using is spreading the work across the available cores. In a four core system if idle CPU is around 75% (usually several percentage points under that because of system related threads supporting the application) then the application is really only using a single core (single threaded). In a four core system if idle CPU is around 50% then the application is really only using two cores (two threads). etc.

You can also look at load average in top. If the load average is around 1 then the work load on the system is on average only utilizing one core. If the load average is around 2, then on average two cores are being utilized. etc. If the load average is greater then the number of cores in the system then the work load is greater then what the cores in the system can run concurrently.

Note load average (and CPU %) will be depressed if the work load is IO bound and not CPU bound... so an application could be attempting to utilize multiple cores (use multiple threads) but IO bandwidth, etc. is starving those threads of the data they need and hence preventing them from executing.

The best way to know that an application is utilizing multiple threads for a task is to use tools like sample and Shark.

[Thomas2006]

The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
The computers will not become obsolete much2 sooner but your bragging rights will.

[Multimedia]

After much debate and anguish i finally decided to order my Mac Pro yesterday... figures this would come up now.... /sigh. I am assuming they will only add a higher end config, but honestley... do any of us know?So you didn't know they were going 8-Core next month? It's only gonna be an extra $300 over the price of the 4-Core 3GHz model for the 8-Core 2.66GHz model. If you are into video and especially compression, 8-cores will make a big productivity difference.

[sterno74]

If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.

I saw on one of the tech sites that they dropped a sample of the quad core xeon into the mac pro and it worked perfectly. There might be some cooling issues, but given that the quads actually run at a slightly lower clock speed, I doubt it.

Getting lots of cores is nice and all, but we aren't going to be seeing the kind of steady speed improvements that we used to. Not everything is readily threadable, and the less effective the threading, the less advantage you get from having all those cores. I mean sure you can encode four different movies at the same time or something like that, but in a real world use case, does it matter?

It's going to be a while before the software catches up with the hardware so in the mean time you're better off with a lower number of high speed cores than a lot of low speed ones.

[Multimedia]

I highly doubt this will be a simple swap.Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6). The Clovertowns are quite expensive,Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.not to mention slower in terms of raw clock speed, so expect it to be a high priced upgrade.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.

Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.

I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.

[sterno74]

Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?

They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores. So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.

The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.

[sonnys]

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.

Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.

[Multimedia]

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; I know you may find this hard to believe, but the entire multimedia industry does not revolve around the Adobe Suite of graphics applications. Plus the industry is already rolling with G5 Quads for that work. There are plenty of other products that are way UB multi-core ready and/or would like to be run simultaneously in a fully blown multi-application multi-threaded workload.and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.Yeah. Professional Mac Pro users can't do the math. :rolleyes:

4 x 3=12GHz

or

8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz

I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.

Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.

Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D

[Multimedia]

They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores.2.66GHz is not slower.So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.

The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.I am astounded by those who drop in here not understanding this technology at all. Read the thread then get back to us. Do you even understand the term Multi-Threaded Workload?

Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D

[AppliedVisual]

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.

There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.

[BenRoethig]

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.

Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.

I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.

[Multimedia]

I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.ROTFLMAO :D :p :) You're breaking my balls Ben.

[ShnikeJSB]

My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!

I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?

[clintob]

I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
Glossing over "heat" and "power" with a blah blah blah is probably a bit cavalier. Those are the two main issues facing notebook computers. Desktops have the advantage of infinite possibilities in terms of size, scale, cooling units, fans, and they have an infinite power source to go with it. Notebooks have to balance performance with energy constraints and heat constraints, the latter being the main issue. If you pile processors into a notebook that heat up, that heat has to dissipate somehow, so you're left with two choices: make a bigger laptop with more vents/cooling units (nobody wants that), or allow that heat to dissipate naturally which has limitations. If you ignore those limitations, you end up with a notebook that overheats, and inevitably your drives die or your motherboard cracks from heat stress.

So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.

[Gurutech]

On the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.

Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p

Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.

Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.

This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.

[Multimedia]

Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.

Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.

This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.

[ChrisA]

Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?

The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.

[c.hilding]

Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.

The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.

Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.

So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968


Happy Halloween!

[Multimedia]

Glossing over "heat" and "power" with a blah blah blah is probably a bit cavalier. Those are the two main issues facing notebook computers. Desktops have the advantage of infinite possibilities in terms of size, scale, cooling units, fans, and they have an infinite power source to go with it. Notebooks have to balance performance with energy constraints and heat constraints, the latter being the main issue. If you pile processors into a notebook that heat up, that heat has to dissipate somehow, so you're left with two choices: make a bigger laptop with more vents/cooling units (nobody wants that), or allow that heat to dissipate naturally which has limitations. If you ignore those limitations, you end up with a notebook that overheats, and inevitably your drives die or your motherboard cracks from heat stress.

So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.Zactly. They already have. I am postponing the mobile purchase until after I have the Dual Clovertown fully operational. Moreover, we can't even see beyond the mobile speed Apple just introduced Tuesday. Intel is giving us no numbers when it comes to beyond 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo. Sure the FSB will be "enhanced" to 800MHz with Santa Rosa. But that's hardly worth a sneeze compared to the 667GHz FSB it already has.

So I think you can forget about large multi-tasking on any mobile for the foreseeable future. Once my workflow shifted from linear to multi-threaded multi-tasking a little less than a year ago, I realized that dual core processors are really not much better than what we had for processing in 1985 - in this new paradigm of how to work a lot of stuff simultaneously.

When I ordered my Quad G5 in February, I was almost in a cold sweat panic. The sudden lack of power not coming out of my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 was frightening as soon as I had made that workflow shift. Scared me to death. I was visibly alarmed.

It was like a combination epiphany and natural disaster - fear and panic at the same time.

[Multimedia]

No one has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.

The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.

Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.

So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968

Happy Halloween!I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"

No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.

[~Shard~]

I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.

Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D

[Eidorian]

I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"

No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.

Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.

[slinger1968]

I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.I've seen this comment on numerous posts and it sounds like people haven't read Anand's review.

It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.

I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.

It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.

Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs

[slinger1968]

Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.

Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.

This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.Exactly

I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.

On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.

[Eidorian]

Exactly

I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.

On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?

[AppliedVisual]

[B][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.

Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.

Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.

[Multimedia]

Exactly

I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown. Different motherboard not Clovertown compatible. Clovertown is specifically designed to be run in tandum with another Clovertown. Kentsfield is specifically designed to run as one on a Conroe motherboard with the cheaper more popular DDR2 RAM.On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.Thanks for the props. :)

[~Shard~]

Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?

[Eidorian]

Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?It honestly depends on if those processors are going to fully saturate the FSB. If the FSB has a high enough data transfer rate then it shouldn't matter much that the cross talk between processors is over the FSB and not onboard via shared cache.

[~Shard~]

It honestly depends on if those processors are going to fully saturate the FSB. If the FSB has a high enough data transfer rate then it shouldn't matter much that the cross talk between processors is over the FSB and not onboard via shard cache.

Thanks Eldorian, I appreciate the insight. :cool: Oh, and I think you meant "shared cache", although I honestly don't mind having cache named after me... ;) :D

[slinger1968]

I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?Yeah, you are correct it would have to be Kentsfield because of the Xeon chipset/motherboard design requires ECC/FB-DIMMs.

What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown.You are correct, I lumped both 4 core chips under the Clovertown name.

I would love a Kentsfield "desktop" based tower but I don't know if Apple wants to add another product line.

[Eidorian]

I would love a Kentsfield "desktop" based tower but I don't know if Apple wants to add another product line.Yeah I'd love one too. A little pricey for a process since it's in the Extreme series though.

[04440]

The quad cores are already amazing.. Shoot.. I can't imagine where are programs are going. You know there's going to be that program that will only run on these 2 quad cores. Disgusting. But beautiful.. I don't want to start counting down the days for this release. I'm still burnt out about the MBP C2D. I'm waiting for my mac store to get it in stock.

[Multimedia]

Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?No thoughts. Hope for the best.

[c.hilding]

You are right Multimedia, it's too early to worry about the FSB, we don't even know what rate they've put it at yet. ;)

[slinger1968]

Yeah I'd love one too. A little pricey for a process since it's in the Extreme series though.I was thinking about the mainstream quadcore Kentsfield chips that will be released in Q1 07 but even an Extreme series 2.66GHz Kentsfield (~ $999) will be a lot cheaper than a 2 chip 2.66GHz Woodcrest ($715 x 2 @newegg).

I'd guess the mainstream 2.4GHz quad-core Kentsfield will be somewhere around $700, certainly cheaper than two 2.33GHz Woodcrest chips(I know this isn't currently an option on the Mac Pro) and probably about the same as two 2GHz Woodcrest chips.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217

Plus the chipset/motherboard and ram will be cheaper too.

By next spring/summer, just in time for CS3, Apple could reasonably sell a single chip quad-core Kentsfield towers for no more than $1999 but I don't think there's much of a chance it will happen. Too bad

[Trishul]

ah i'm so glad i check this website, sold my Quad G5 day before yesterday, and put in an order for a Mac Pro, that would have arrived Tuesday, fortunately (at least i hope it turns out that way) i saw this news last night, being unable to cancel online, i had to call and have just now cancelled the order. Don't know how to read into this, and i doubt customer services are in possession of such information but when the lady asked me why i was cancelling i mentioned hearing about new version coming out, it was news to her she thought i was making it up, so she put me on hold, and came back after a minute or two, i was worried she was coming back with news saying i couldn't cancel my order or something, but she had a different tone as if someone told her the news was true and she was happy to cancel.

But seriously i wish there was some more concrete news of the Octo core, i'm going to have to finish off a lot of work this weekend before i ship my G5 on Monday, as i'm going to be without a Mac for at least 2-3 weeks, and even if the new Revision comes out as planned lord knows what the waiting time will be, what if they have option of x1950 or something and we are looking at the delays like before?

Looks like i have an excuse to get one of those new fangled MB Pros. no Mac for a month, can not imagine it. :(

[Multimedia]

ah i'm so glad i check this website, sold my Quad G5 day before yesterday, and put in an order for a Mac Pro, that would have arrived Tuesday, fortunately (at least i hope it turns out that way) i saw this news last night, being unable to cancel online, i had to call and have just now cancelled the order. Don't know how to read into this, and i doubt customer services are in possession of such information but when the lady asked me why i was cancelling i mentioned hearing about new version coming out, it was news to her she thought i was making it up, so she put me on hold, and came back after a minute or two, i was worried she was coming back with news saying i couldn't cancel my order or something, but she had a different tone as if someone told her the news was true and she was happy to cancel.

But seriously i wish there was some more concrete news of the Octo core, i'm going to have to finish off a lot of work this weekend before i ship my G5 on Monday, as i'm going to be without a Mac for at least 2-3 weeks, and even if the new Revision comes out as planned lord knows what the waiting time will be, what if they have option of x1950 or something and we are looking at the delays like before?

Looks like i have an excuse to get one of those new fangled MB Pros. no Mac for a month, can not imagine it. :(I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.

What was your reasoning?

And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:

[bigwig]

That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.
Scaling isn't really a product of your scheduler, it's a product of eliminating bottlenecks to multiple threads of execution. I'm glad that Apple is working on this. I didn't come up with this from whole cloth or animosity towards Apple, I saw several benchmarks showing how poorly OSX scaled, which I hope are now out of date.

I mentioned SGI several times here because I used to do kernel work for them, so I have a real good idea what it takes to scale performance on large (256-1024 CPU) systems. Btw, that's not a cluster, that's a single kernel being shared by all processors.

[bigwig]

At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times.

Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.

No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.

[bigwig]

Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?
I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.

[sblasl]

I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?

On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?

Thanks

[~Shard~]

I don't know if Intel ever changed it, but one of the historical reasons you couldn't make a scalable multi-cpu x86 system is that x86s did bus snooping. Once you got more than ~3-4 x86s on the same bus the bus would be saturated by snooping traffic and there would be little room for real data. I think that's why Intel is pushing multi-core so much, it's a hack to work around Intel's broken bus. The RISC cpus (MIPS et al) didn't do that, that's why all the high cpu count systems used them.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. :cool:

[combatcolin]

Bugger only 8 Cores.

Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....

[Multimedia]

I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?

On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.

Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.

I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.

Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?

Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)

[AppliedVisual]

Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.

SGI tried to build more popularity for MIPS by spinning it off as a totally separate company in the late '90s. But other than embedded applications and various closed architecture implementations, the MIPS CPUs became a dead product line. Too bad, they were always fairly nice CPUs... As for the Itanium deal, the only major UNIX vendor that essentially sunk with the Itanic was SGI. Sun just brushed it off and moved on, as did HP and IBM. SGI's ship was sinking long before thier jump to IA64... They initially started to even go x86 and it was totally obvious that this would work for them. But I think their corporate leadership and investors panicked when suddenly they had two Windows systems on the market that were outperforming their current model Irix workstations for less than half the price. If SGI was smart, they would have dug right in and milked that cow for all it was worth and continued to expand their x86 lines... 64bit x86 was already on the drawing board back then so it wasn't an unknown factor. SGI would have done well to port Irix to x86, too bad they didn't have the foresight to do it.

SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.

Altix is nice, but hardly unique in todays marketplace. That and it's still Itanium based, which is a glaring red flag. I'd much rather go for one of Sun's large-scale solutions based on Opteron CPUs. It may only give me 90% of the per-CPU performance with 70% of the bandwidth across the entire cluster, but it's also half the price and I know that the CPU architecture will still be supported several years from now. Itanium is all but dead and Intel doesn't even seem interested in supporting it anymore. Most major workstation and server vendors have dropped it already and Intel has missed ship dates for most of the IA64 products on their roadmap. SGI claims they came out of bankruptcy a very focused and agile company... Yet they're still producing products based on a CPU architecture most the rest of the industry has already written off. So yeah, niche market for sure. SGI can't even muster the resources to continue development of Irix and it's being discontinued this year. So now all they have is some overgrown IA64 Linux boxes. What's going to happen if their current sales figures stay about the same and their own technologies dry up? They're just going to become another business-oriented Linux server vendor placing off-the-shelf components in some of the prettiest boxes around for a super-premium price. ...That's practically all they are now and the only thing that really differentiates their products (other than the cool system bezels and rack enclosures) is their NUMALink design.

I used to be very fond of SGI and their products, but that was years ago... The past 6 years have been a continuous downhill spiral and the company I once loved has been dead and gone for a long time now.

[gnasher729]

Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.

There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.

[Multimedia]

There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.Quite. So + $1400 you think makes it $3899. No problem. Still a bargain - at least for me it is. My cars are all paid for. ;)

[Eidorian]

Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.

Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.

I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.

Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?

Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )

I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...

[sblasl]

OK, so I now know what the potential capabilities of the new machines will have. If I look at the Apple Store and see the 3 current base options & price, when the release occurs, what is the speculation of choices & prices?

I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.

I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.

[sblasl]

Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?

[Multimedia]

OK, so I now know what the potential capabilities of the new machines will have. If I look at the Apple Store and see the 3 current base options & price, when the release occurs, what is the speculation of choices & prices?

I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.

I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.This is a fairly short thread. All your questions and answers have been discussed in depth above. You should wait in case there is more base RAM to 2GB since that's the new base in MacBook Pros.

Figure Plus $800-$1400 for the 8-core

[Multimedia]

Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?What's your best price on that puppy? I've been wanting to do that for a while. But my 500GB boot drive is almost full all the time. ;)

Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p

[FF_productions]

Wow, and I thought the G5's were God.

[DHagan4755]

Maybe Apple will replace the 2.0 and 2.6 models with the 1 new quad-core Clovertown. They are probably less expensive for 1 than 2 Woodcrests. This would allow Apple to drop the entry level pricing and raise the bar so to speak.

Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499

Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)

What do you think?

[Multimedia]

Maybe Apple will replace the 2.0 and 2.6 models with the 1 new quad-core Clovertown. They are probably less expensive for 1 than 2 Woodcrests. This would allow Apple to drop the entry level pricing and raise the bar so to speak.

Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499

Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)

What do you think?Not likely as all four in one would have to share one FSB instead of two in two each having their own FSB. While the 8-core owners will have to live with this limitation, I doubt the 4-core buyers would want theirs running that way. That would make the older 4-core Mac Pros run faster than the new ones. Not progress.

We are now less than four weeks away from Black Friday. So it's all very exciting. I imagine Apple will be able to add this choice the same day Intel makes release official. So watching for Intel's release day is key. I believe I read some post that said it would be mid November. Anyone know exactly?

[sblasl]

What's your best price on that puppy? I've been wanting to do that for a while. But my 500GB boot drive is almost full all the time. ;)

Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p

Right now newegg.com has them at $229.99 with a $30.00 rebate. Must be purchased by October 31, 2006. That makes it $199.99. I've paid more for less in my life time.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136011

On my current G5, my boot drive is a striped raid with the following:

2 - SEAGATE ST336607LW 10,000 RPM drives, for speeds up to 320MB/s
1 - ATTO,ExpressPCIProUL4D
http://www.attotech.com/ultra4s.html
1 - Granite Digital SCSIVue Custom RAID Case #3300 w/ Granite Digital SCSI VueTeflon Gold Diagnostic Ultra Cable #6960
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg03_cases.htm
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg09_xtcables.htm


The raid gives me 68.1 GB of storage. I boot from this drive and have all of my applications on it. Storage for all music, videos, & pictures are kept on 2 - Maxtor 7Y250M0 250 GB drives that are internal.

I have been spoiled with this setup but unfortunately, when I move to the Mac Pro I won't be able to use the SCSI setup.

If anyone wants to buy this setup let me know.

[Umbongo]

Not likely as all four in one would have to share one FSB instead of two in two each having their own FSB. While the 8-core owners will have to live with this limitation, I doubt the 4-core buyers would want theirs running that way. That would make the older 4-core Mac Pros run faster than the new ones. Not progress.

We are now less than four weeks away from Black Friday. So it's all very exciting. I imagine Apple will be able to add this choice the same day Intel makes release official. So watching for Intel's release day is key. I believe I read some post that said it would be mid November. Anyone know exactly?

Monday the 13th.

[Multimedia]

Monday the 13th Intel announces Clovertown and Kentsfield are shipping.Thanks. So Tuesday the 14th or if not then, the 21st would be our likely days. 14th is probably more likely because all Apple has to do is take orders even if they haven't received any Clovertowns yet and the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday week which would mess with their publicity. So we're talking two weeks from Tuesday. Perfect. Can't wait to place my order the same day. :)

[dante@sisna.com]

I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.

AMEN Multimedia!!!

Amen.

I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.

I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.

[SRSound]

The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year.

I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!

[~Shard~]

I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!

I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)

[SRSound]

I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)

I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?

[I'mAMac]

I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?

[shawnce]

I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?

We can't answer that question without knowing what you want to do with the system... it fully depends on the work loads you plan to throw at it. In some cases fewer faster cores makes sense in others more, even if slower (lower clocked), cores makes sense.

[Multimedia]

I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest. Each Clovertown is simply two Woodcrests combined into one pin compatible package.

Apple should take orders beginning Tuesday November 14, the day after Intel has their "Shipping" Press Event. There will not be a big delay from then and when they ship because Intel is delivering them in quantity to manufacturers right away in November and the number of orders will be small compared to C2D products as well as Woodcrest products.

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Apple as always being slow to ship new products. My impression of the C2D iMac release Wednesday September 6, 2006 is that it was both early and rapidly deployed. I don't think many of us saw it coming and they were immediately for sale in quantity in all the Apple Stores as well as online shipping immediately.I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?Clovertowns are Xeons. They are Dual Woodcrests on one pin compatible package. They are not slower. They run 2.66GHz which is same as the stock MBP offering now. They will provide a total of 21.28GHz worth of power vs. 10.64GHz or 12GHz on the current 2.66GHz & 3GHz 4-core models. Do you know your workflow? Do you know what you use is multi-core aware or not? Do you know if you want to run multiple instances of multi-core aware applicatinos simultaneously? These are the kind of questions you need to ask yourself.

The Dual Clovertown Mac Pro is going to cost you over $4,000 once you put a decent amount of RAM in it. So are you ready for that much expense to save huge chunks of time? This is a Time-Is-Money product. If you don't see how you're going to save time with such a Mac then you may as well pass on it.

I'm sitting here writing you on my Quad G5 while I watch the paint dry on my two Toast video compression series I'm currently running so I can run a Handbrake compression series and another Toast compression series after they finish.

I have never needed so much more power in my lives with Macs since the early years '84-'93 as I do now. I think there are several others here who also are in the same boat. If you're here out of curiosity and not need, then you haven't yet realized how much you can do simultaneously on a Mac once you develop a Multi-Threaded Workload process that begs for more power all the time.

i would say that this upcoming 8-core Mac Pro is the first Mac that might be able to keep ahead of me. But in a few months I will probably be yearning for a 16-core Mac Pro as soon as Intel & Apple can put it together with independent busses for each core or at least more busses per core than one for four. Like maybe at least two for four ASAP.

[AppliedVisual]

AMEN Multimedia!!!

Amen.

I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.

I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.

I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.

[AHDuke99]

My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!

I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?

i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.

[AppliedVisual]

i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.

Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...

[AidenShaw]

No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest.
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.

In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:

Thread_ID tid[4];

for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
tid[i] = System.Thread.Create();
}


It's also possible that a program might check the number of CPUs, and decide not to run if it sees more than 4 CPUs. This doesn't make much sense, but I've seen stranger things.

[AppliedVisual]

In theory you're correct, Multimedia.

In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:

Thread_ID tid[4];

for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
tid[i] = System.Thread.Create();
}

Yep... Although, I'm not sure where your code example shows anything to do woth such logic bugs, all you're doing is creating an array of thread IDs equal to the number of CPUs in the system. ...Anyone who uses such a direct and bluntly stupid thread creation methodology should be struck square between the eyes with a tackhammer, though. ;)

[quote]It's also possible that a program might check the number of CPUs, and decide not to run if it sees more than 4 CPUs. This doesn't make much sense, but I've seen stranger things.

I've seen some pretty strange stuff too... I'm sure there's going to be the usual issues he had this last time around with dual-core CPUs. I'm sure there's enough apps out there that check to see if CPUs are <= 4 before they run or other such nonsense. With dual core CPUs we had a whole mess with FlexLM licensed applications that were limited with licenses based on CPU numbers and industry arguments over whether or not dual-core CPUs should be considered one or two CPUs.

Just a few more weeks until the fun begins. :D

[AidenShaw]

[QUOTE=AidenShaw;2994604]For example:

Thread_ID tid[4];

for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
tid[i] = System.Thread.Create();
}

Yep... Although, I'm not sure where your code example shows anything to do woth such logic bugs, all you're doing is creating an array of thread IDs equal to the number of CPUs in the system.
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).

It then creates as many threads as the actual CPU count reported by the system.

On an octo - it will overrun the "tid" array and probably not work....

[AppliedVisual]

[QUOTE=AppliedVisual;2994702]
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).

I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...

[dante@sisna.com]

I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.

Ouch! You do make an Outstanding Case for that 8 Core MacPro. For Sure. Okay, so maybe I would be tempted to sell my Quad G5. Scary. . ..

[Multimedia]

In theory you're correct, Multimedia.

In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:

Thread_ID tid[4];

for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
tid[i] = System.Thread.Create();
}


It's also possible that a program might check the number of CPUs, and decide not to run if it sees more than 4 CPUs. This doesn't make much sense, but I've seen stranger things.
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).

It then creates as many threads as the actual CPU count reported by the system.

On an octo - it will overrun the "tid" array and probably not work....Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to wait for someone else or me at a store to make sure Toast and Handbrake don't have those bugs. :eek:

Wonder what the chances are an 8-core Mac Pro will be on display at the Apple Stores?

[Octobot]

Im definitely ready to upgrade to a new Mac Pro, top of the line..
The fact that the OctoMac could be released anytime between Black Friday and MWSF is really making me anxious..

I fear that they hold it till MW.. and I jump the gun and buy a Quad. I mean Im using a Powerbook 1.67.. and multi-tasking like crazy.. The upgrade is a must.. sometimes Im running Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator, Itunes, Azureus, After Effects all at the same time.. Obviously as soon as I render, coffee break!

The quad would still kick ass.. Octo would pave the road ahead.

Keeping my eyes peeled on any indication of the TBA Octo. :cool:

L

[Multimedia]

Im definitely ready to upgrade to a new Mac Pro, top of the line..
The fact that the OctoMac could be released anytime between Black Friday and MWSF is really making me anxious..

I fear that they hold it till MW.. and I jump the gun and buy a Quad. I mean Im using a Powerbook 1.67.. and multi-tasking like crazy.. The upgrade is a must.. sometimes Im running Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator, Itunes, Azureus, After Effects all at the same time.. Obviously as soon as I render, coffee break!

The quad would still kick ass.. Octo would pave the road ahead.

Keeping my eyes peeled on any indication of the TBA Octo. :cool: Post 163 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2994404&postcount=163)

Running a bunch of apps simultaneously and switching around is not a multi-threaded workload but is multi-tasking. The Multi-Threaded Workload is like when you start rendering in one, then switch to another and start rendering there, then switch to another and start crushing video, then switch to another and start crushing another video with the second application of two needed to get it down to high quality mp4 like for example how I use Toast followed by Handbrake to first create high quality DVD Images then crush those further to high quality mp4 with Handbrake's 2-pass FFmpeg encoder. Toast can use up to all 4 Quad Mac Pro cores and Handbrake can use almost 3. I hope to God they still function properly on the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.

This would not resemble the workflow you exercise with a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4. You would be doing things in quite a different way with 8-cores at your disposal. But it does depend on how much you want to use multi-threaded applications simultaneously and as warned above, that what you use will not fold in the face of reports to them that there are more than 4 cores on board due to software authoring mistakes.

[Octobot]

If I was running upcomming Leopard OSX, a few osx apps, the full upcoming CS3 Suite (not necessarily Batch Processing), have After Effects rendering a 30 minute clip in the background, downloading *legal torrents, watching internet tv (muted), while burning a DVD and listening to music..

That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet

Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..

thx in advance,
L

[Multimedia]

If I was running upcomming Leopard OSX, a few osx apps, the full upcoming CS3 Suite (not necessarily Batch Processing), have After Effects rendering a 30 minute clip in the background, downloading *legal torrents, watching internet tv (muted), while burning a DVD and listening to music..

That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet

Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..IMHO Definitely. With the Quad each process you describe will run slower and/or flat out bog down the Mac so you can't even word process without waiting for characters to appear. I know this 'cause I already have this happening to me a lot on the Quad G5.

[gnasher729]

Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to wait for someone else or me at a store to make sure Toast and Handbrake don't have those bugs. :eek:

That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.

[Multimedia]

That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.I'm not worried about that at all. Only worry about crashes due to not knowing what to do when 8 are reported. I want to run 4 things at once so I am not concerned each can't use all 8 at once. That's a feature not a bug. ;)

[jaguarx]

Personally I'm waiting for this upgrade not for the 8 cores (it doesn't really help my kind of workflow much) but hopefully a base of 2 gig ram for less and a price drop, even a small one on the quad 2.66 and 3.0Ghz processors. Considering the Macbook Pros now come with 2 gig base it seems fairly likely.

That said the one thing I'd love to see would be hardware RAID support. I just don't quite trust softRAID as much as dedicated hardware and would love to do RAID1+0 with WDRaptors.

[~Shard~]

Personally I'm waiting for this upgrade not for the 8 cores (it doesn't really help my kind of workflow much) but hopefully a base of 2 gig ram for less and a price drop, even a small one on the quad 2.66 and 3.0Ghz processors. Considering the Macbook Pros now come with 2 gig base it seems fairly likely.

Keep in mind the Mac Pro does not use the same type of RAM as the MBP. The Mac Pro uses FB-DIMM technology which is much more expesnsive, so as a result, I would disagree with you and say that it is not very likely we will see 2 GB as the base RAM configuration in the new Mac Pros - not without the extra cost being compensated for in some manner. :cool:

[jaguarx]

Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.

[AppliedVisual]

Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.

Apple leaves the default RAM configuration small so that people can customize it to their needs - even with aftermarket RAM. If they boosted the base RAM to 2GB (or even 4GB), that would be great, but only if the price was still competitive. Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close. Several vendors are now selling FB-DIMM memory with Apple-compliant heatsinks for half of what Apple is charging. But it has also been a few months since Apple has adjusted their prices on RAM... I guess we'll just see what happens when the updated Mac Pro offerings are announced.

I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.

[Eidorian]

Apple's current RAM prices are not competitive, nowhere near close.SO-DIMM, yes. FB-DIMM, no.

[AppliedVisual]

SO-DIMM, yes. FB-DIMM, no.

I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:

[Multimedia]

I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.Doubtful. What I'm hoping for is a base of two 1GB sticks, losing the two 512 sticks as you say they should end selling with this update. An 8-core Mac Pro would not run very well with only 1GB of slower RAM. I believe an 8-core Mac is going to want 8GB of RAM to run properly but I imagine 4GB would be enough for fairly decent operation. Depends on your apps. The ones I like to run don't use much RAM at all.

[Trishul]

I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.

What was your reasoning?

And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:

i wish i could have kept the Quad for some of those reasons mentioned, but it's purely down to financial reasons, i simply wouldn't be able to afford keeping both. I'm a film-maker just starting out, so i'm not getting a very steady income that is related to work done with a computer to be able to justify such expenditures etc.. firstly i got a decent price for my quad, i wouldn't have sold otherwise, it'll only be a few hundered pounds for me to upgrade to a mac pro, but i sold partially because i'm one of those who likes the newest etc.. but main actual reasons are
1) I mainly use HDV with Final Cut Studio, so the performance bump would be very useful for me, obviously more of a luxury, FCP worked fine on the quad, but anything better is worth it. 2) I use adobe but any of the few deadlines i have don't really rely on the use of adobe software, but i know in a few months the use of adobe stuff will be much more important to me and i'll have to buy a license, CS3 will probably be out by then as well as other Universal Binary converts, and i imagine the Quad will only be worth having for people needing a backup machine, the value of it will drop like anything, no?? rather sell now while the value of it is still fairly high, and especially because they are out of stock everywhere. 3) I get a windows capable machine that is powerful enough to let me use some software i wouldn't have been able to use before on my 2.4ghz, 1gb PC, as well as run games properly on my 30". Buying a seperate similar specced Windows PC wouldn't be worth it for me, but the situation with bootcamp is just perfect for my needs.

If i was running a steady business, no way would i have sold the Quad, but i'd rather sell now while i can afford to be sans mac, rather than down the line when i know the mac pro will be extremely sought after and get bottom dollar for the quad.

oh i knew the 8-core was coming out, i just didn't know it would be this soon, i've only recently started getting into the 'underground' gossip of macs, and i don't know where i got the idea from but i thought the octo would be around Q1/2 of next year, and i would just have just done the upgrade myself if it warranted it. Anyway i was able to finish all my work this weekend before i shipped it today, so in a strange way i have a sort of holiday thanks to this news, though as a recent mac convert i can't believe i used to live like this, already missing her. :(

[paulvee]

This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?

Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.

You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.

[Multimedia]

This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?

Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.

You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?

[AppliedVisual]

This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?


The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:

Is this really true?

[paulvee]

I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?

I have not. Been too busy living in FCP all day and night and trying to get Sonnet or Promax to get a working driver for the E4P card that's supposed to power the unit I got from Promax. It's on my list, but feel free to call them if you have time. There is power in numbers. If you call, post here and I'll call that day and maybe we can jar something in their R&D depts. :)

[BJNY]

maxupgrades.com should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.

[Multimedia]

The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:

Is this really true?No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for different client projects.maxupgrades.com (http://maxupgrades.com) should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.Good to know.

Just noticed 1-8004MEMORY is now selling 4GB KIT (2GBX2) DDR2 667 ECC FULLY BUFFERED FOR APPLE MAC PRO for only $690 each via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459) . This makes 2GB sticks now lower crossover price per GB - $172.50 each - vs. 1GB sticks which are priced more than $200 each now. Happy days are here again!

But not sure if heatsinks are included. Can't tell without calling them tomorrow.

Then I would add a pair of $75 MaxSink Heatsinks (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=157) for a total of $765 per 2x2GB kit still only $191.25/GB.

Or just get the MaxSinks already installed properly with 2 Samsung 2GB sticks for $789 from MaxUpgrades.com.

So a 6GB 8-Core Mac Pro is looking like about $4500 to me now.

[AppliedVisual]

No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for didfferent client projects.Good to know.

Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:

Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.

[Multimedia]

Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:

Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?

BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?

[AppliedVisual]

I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?

I don't know why it wouldn't work... In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen eSATA enclosures advertised as working with a Mac. I'll see if I can find one.

BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?

I've had pretty much the same luck... Some USB2 devices struggle a bit due to the onboard USB2 chipset, but for the most part, they're equivalent to FW400 (with a max rate of 480Mbps) and USB2 handles traffic from multiple devices better than firewire. OTOH, lots of older Mac systems, especially those Powerbook G4s, struggled with USB2 and often exhibited poor performance. But overall, I think USB2 has a bad reputation that it didn't deserve to get stuck with. In my experience having owned quite a few USB2 storage devices, I find that poor performance is more the fault of the device maker than the interface itself as I've got some hard drives - like a couple of my external Maxtor units, that perform blazingly fast and in no way slower on USB2 than when connected via FW.

[jaguarx]

I've always found UBS2 HDs to be on average a little slower than FW400 but then FW800 kicks the **** out of it. If you needs the IO it's SATA through.

[aquadjcity]

My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...

[~Shard~]

My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...

I hope you don't have to wait too long... :o

[Multimedia]

My quad was to ship today, after waiting four business days and two weekend days for a CTO build (2 GB RAM). But I would feel sick to have had the machine for a week when the Octo's are announced. I hope this baby makes Logic Pro sing...Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.

[SRSound]

Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.

Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...

[AppliedVisual]

Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.

What's funny is that the 8-core Mac Pro will be more of a stop-gap model. After all, the Clovertown is two Woodcrest CPUs on the same die, but still running off the same FSB bandwidth and the first pair of cores must utilize the FSB to transfer data to the second pair of cores and vice versa. We won't see unified quad-core CPUs until sometime next year along with the multiplexed/bonded (and faster base rate) FSB implementations. ...AMD will be shipping fully unified quad-core CPUs in mid-December to early January. Not that it matters since Apple isn't using them.

Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.

[paulvee]

Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.

That really is the truth. My dual 3.0 xeon will not be the top dawg within months, most likely, but I had to get it in order to finish this film and, as importantly, to bump my old top dawg Dual 2.0 G5 to my prep/photoshop/audio machine. My workflow involves two machines and my old MDD Dual 1.25 was the one that really needed to go.

I'm fine with four cores for now and, in a year or two, whenever I can justify a new machine, the Dual 3.0 will get knocked off the perch and I'll get the latest and greatest. I just wish that RAM and peripherals didn't add so much to the cost of a production machine these days, but that's life.

[mattbatt]

Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.

Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.

I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.

Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?

Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)

Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.

First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.

In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.

One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.

SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)

[Multimedia]

Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...Think long term. All the pro software is being re-written right now to take advantage of more cores at once. So short term you're right. But knowing how processor intensive music applications in particular are, not unlike video application compression work, you're gonna be glad you waited for the 8-core intstead - if you can wait since we don't really know the WHEN part for sure. Guessing November 14th don't make it so til the release hits the web. :)

[Multimedia]

What's funny is that the 8-core Mac Pro will be more of a stop-gap model. After all, the Clovertown is two Woodcrest CPUs on the same die, but still running off the same FSB bandwidth and the first pair of cores must utilize the FSB to transfer data to the second pair of cores and vice versa. We won't see unified quad-core CPUs until sometime next year along with the multiplexed/bonded (and faster base rate) FSB implementations. ...AMD will be shipping fully unified quad-core CPUs in mid-December to early January. Not that it matters since Apple isn't using them.

Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.

[~Shard~]

This discussion is rather amusing in a way - "don't buy 4 cores, wait for 8 cores!" etc. - yeah, and in a few months it'll be "don't buy 8 cores, wait for 16 cores!" and then 32 cores, blah blah, ad infinitum... :p ;) :D :cool:

[Multimedia]

This discussion is rather amusing in a way - "don't buy 4 cores, wait for 8 cores!" etc. - yeah, and in a few months it'll be "don't buy 8 cores, wait for 16 cores!" and then 32 cores, blah blah, ad infinitum... :p ;) :D :cool:No kidding. :rolleyes: All I want is to compress video faster than I can with the 4-core Mac Pro - that's IT. So if it won't do that, I'll just have a cow and go to bed for six months. :eek:

[AppliedVisual]

Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.

I think for most tasks the extra cores will be beneficial - especially once software catches up and can properly take advantage. But I can see bandwidth-intensive applications having trouble. Uncompressed video editing and compositing could hit a bottleneck here when running several streams at 1080p or 2K ~ 4K film res. I'm personally not too worried about it with most of the work I do, which is 3D rendering and that's farily low-bandwidth with lots of intense calculations. I do quite a bit of video work and lots of editing of my animation output, but even at HD resolutions I don't usually work with enough streams or simultaneous sources to saturate my bus bandwidth. Or at least the bus hasn't become a bottleneck for my G5 Quads or Quad Opteron systems just yet. ...Or should I say the software hasn't allowed it to be. But I'm eagerly awaiting the 8-core Macs and I'm hoping Apple may bring a few other upgrades to the config page with the next update. It's starting to look like a new Mac Pro isn't in the budget for this year, but who knows. I'm planning to buy one if I can...

[gnasher729]

Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.

FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.

Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.

[~Shard~]

No kidding. :rolleyes: All I want is to compress video faster than I can with the 4-core Mac Pro - that's IT. So if it won't do that, I'll just have a cow and go to bed for six months. :eek:

Haha, sounds like a good plan! ;) :)

[Multimedia]

FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.

Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.Thank you for the positive feedback. But I don't rip anything from DVDs much at all. I crush EyeTV2 broadcast recordings with Toast 7.1 (UB) to DVD Images on hard drives. Then I 2-pass rip from those images with Handbrake to mp4 so I'm not having any optical bottleneck at all. From what you say, this should be much faster like I'm hoping with all those cores.

[BJNY]

Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/

[Multimedia]

Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:

"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:

"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)

Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.

Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.

My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.

And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.

[dante@sisna.com]

Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:

"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:

"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)

Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.

Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.

My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.

And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.

Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.

I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.

Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.

Dante
CreativeBeans

[Gaelic1]

If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)

[~Shard~]

Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)

Evidently you haven't read the myriad of posts in this thread regarding multi-threaded workflows... :rolleyes: :cool:

[BJNY]

If one follows the link,
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.

[Multimedia]

If one follows the link, the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p

[AppliedVisual]

Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p

We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.

[Octobot]

If one follows the link,
the cooler Clovertons are much lower GHz.

Can't seem to find the above mentioned statement..
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?

Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?

I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:

[Multimedia]

Can't seem to find the above mentioned statement..
so its saying that the 2.66 won't be too power hungry in contrast to the higher models..?
Does this revive the whole 8-core excitement.. (multimedia) Do we still see a release this month.. worth purchasing?

Or are we still at the point.. where waiting till first quarter 07 is a better bet.?

I really need to make my mind up on when to buy :confused:I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.

Seems like next Tuesday November 7 will be the date for MacBook/mini C2D release. So that leaves only Tuesday November 14 right after Intel says Clovertowns are shipping because the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday. If it doesn't happen then, I imagine we're gonna have to wait for MacWorld Expo. :(

This is all me just guessing you understand.

[slinger1968]

I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.I wouldn't expect the Clovertowns to be a BTO option right away. Sure they are pin compatable but Apple will need to make sure that they can cool these chips well enough to be very stable. Maybe Apple has already been testing the clovertown config, but we haven't heard any rumors and who knows if they need additional cooling.

I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.

Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.

[ksz]

We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
This page (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866&p=2) from Anandtech, describing power consumption on Kentsfield, brings up the issue of independently varying clock frequency and voltage per core, something that is rather tough to implement. Even at 65nm Intel could do what AMD will do in Barcelona, which is to implement independent clocks for each core.

[Multimedia]

I wouldn't expect the Clovertowns to be a BTO option right away. Sure they are pin compatable but Apple will need to make sure that they can cool these chips well enough to be very stable. Maybe Apple has already been testing the clovertown config, but we haven't heard any rumors and who knows if they need additional cooling.

I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.

Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.The Source Article Of This Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2982349&postcount=1) Says Apple Completed Preperation For 8-Core In September. According to the Merom and Conroe release quantities, it will be a lot when they say they are shipping.

"The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown. . .

It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season."

[sblasl]

Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

[slinger1968]

The Source Article Of This Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2982349&postcount=1) "It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season."There's nothing in any of those articles that mentions the extra heat that the new CPU's will produce. I'm skeptical of marketing release type stories without bench tests to back up their claims.

Hopefully Apple has indeed already addressed the additional heat issue but I guess I'll wait for the actual benchmarks. I believe the NDA's are up tomorrow so the real data should come in soon.

[slinger1968]

Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.

Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.

[sblasl]

Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:o

[slinger1968]

Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:oNo worries I made the same mistake just a few days ago. The naming isn't all that helpful and some of it is pretty awful... "Core 2 Extreme" is the name of this 4 core processor? Great job Intel. :rolleyes:

[Multimedia]

Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 - 2.66 GHz Kentsfield Review (http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt)That's Kentsfield so it's a little off topic. But you did the right thing in posting this. Not wrong.

The most interesting thing I find about this article is that Tiger is dumping top Conroe NOW for $974. I love the marketing copy on this page. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566&Sku=CP1-DUO-X6800&SRCCODE=CNETFEED&CMP=OTC-CNETFEED&ci_srccode=cii_5766179&cpncode=08-15259969-2). :eek: :

"Hurry!!
We're Selling Our Core2 Extreme CPUs at COST.
That's right...we're selling our complete stock of Intel Core2 Extreme processors AT COST! If you've been waiting for a price drop before making a move to the latest in CPU technology, it's time to take action now."

The More The Hype The Better I say.

That leads me to believe now more than ever it's gonna happen from Apple in two weeks. :D

Here's first good picture of 2.66GHz Kentsfield I've come across:

[Multimedia]

That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.

Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.

[slinger1968]

A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.

Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.

[Multimedia]

Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.

Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.

Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.

In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.

The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.

The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:

You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.

[slinger1968]

The most interesting thing I find about this article is that Tiger is dumping top Conroe NOW for $974. I love the marketing copy on this page. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566&Sku=CP1-DUO-X6800&SRCCODE=CNETFEED&CMP=OTC-CNETFEED&ci_srccode=cii_5766179&cpncode=08-15259969-2). :eek: :

"Hurry!!
We're Selling Our Core2 Extreme CPUs at COST.
That's right...we're selling our complete stock of Intel Core2 Extreme processors AT COST! If you've been waiting for a price drop before making a move to the latest in CPU technology, it's time to take action now."I find bad marketing annoying but I have to admit that I'm way outside the loop of the general consumer.

"it's time to take action now" Why? because the chips are only going to get cheaper?

"So order an Intel Core2 Extreme processor AT COST today!"... because Intel is cutting the prices to retailers and tomorrow this same price for the consumer will be above cost?

It's only :rolleyes: $949 at newegg.

I buy what I want/need/can afford. Sometimes that's way ahead of the tech curve and sometimes it's not.

Sorry, but I hate stupid marketing.

Boy are you out of touch with reality.

Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought an EyeTV Hybrid so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac.Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.

I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.

Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.

I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumer.

[Multimedia]

Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.

I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.

Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.

I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.

[slinger1968]

I could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.

[thereubster]

OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.

Sounds good......:)

[Multimedia]

Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.I never made such a claim. You completely misunderstand my meaning. I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.

They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.

[Multimedia]

OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.

Sounds good......:)I'm with you there. Not new that there is a small group here that can't understand why the Conroe card isn't being played yet. Kentsfield has got to be coming to a Mac Pro soon, iMacs next Spring and then Kentsfield's successor Bloomsfield in the 2008 iMacs later. Then in 2009 let's see 8-core Yorkfield in that year's iMacs please.

[toddicus]

OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.

Sounds good......:)

I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.

I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.

[thereubster]

I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.

I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.

I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
just an idea I had, feel free to rip it to shreads.

[jsw]

Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I archive HD broadcast recordings on my Rev A mini Core Duo, both OTA ones via the Hybrid and ones via the FireWire connection on my cable box.

FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.

There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.

[paulvee]

Most pros I know don't measurebate about specs on forums all day, every day - yes, once in a while they do, but most of the time they're...doing work...

[toddicus]

I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)


I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.

this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros

[Multimedia]

I archive HD broadcast recordings on my Rev A mini Core Duo, both OTA ones via the Hybrid and ones via the FireWire connection on my cable box.

FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.

There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.Of course the HD doesn't stress any Mac as weak as a 500MHz G4. It's the compression process that does all the stressing. Toast can easily use both cores of the mini and may use up to 4 cores in a Mac Pro. And Handbrake will also use both cores of the mini and over 2 on the MP. The archiving is what eats cores - not the recording.

Are you converting the 4.4GB 42 minute after editing out the commercials "hour" to a maxiumum quality 2.6GB DVD image so Handbrake can crush that down to a 350MB mp4 file on your mini? Try that and report how long it takes. Takes about 2-3 hours on a Quad. Direct exports from EyeTV2 look like c**p. I am striving for quality in my archives, not stuff that I can't watch due to poor quality results any other way.

Please tell us more about what comes out of your cable box's FW port and how you are able to record that to begin with.

[amaxware]

Anyone hear of Apple going the opposite direction with the Xeon.
i.e. how about a single dual-core?

[OdduWon]

Someone give multimedia 8 cores please. so he will have more time to bring the know. :D
you rock ;)

[amaxware]

To be more clear...
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?

A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 cores

[Multimedia]

Anyone hear of Apple going the opposite direction with the Xeon.
i.e. how about a single dual-core?To be more clear...
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?

A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 coresSingle Dual Core is out of the question. We're way past wanting-needing less than 4-cores. Xeon are made to be used in pairs. What you probably mean is discussed above - a single 4-core Kentsfield processor (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3014347&postcount=239) in a Conroe motherboard. Some of us hope that will be a sub $2k offering next year.

More like:
4 cores 2006
8 cores 2007
16 cores 2008
32 cores 2009
64 cores 2010

[slinger1968]

I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.Well try reading what you are responding to, before you get your panties in a bunch. I was clearly talking about most software for the masses, not all software. Most software is currently behind the hardware because most software is not written for more than 2 cores yet.

They aren't. That's my whole point.Well, You are wrong, most software is behind the current hardware. The hardware is only still weak for a small niche market of power users. You are a power user but the majority of people out there, especially iMac buyers are not using their computers for the same tasks. Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.

They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.The hardware is only weak for a small niche group of power users. It's rediculous to think that the average user is doing 3D modeling or high powered video processing. It's just silly.

I have a dedicated bittorrent/music playing computer for live uncopywritten music. I've downloaded/uploaded over 1 terabyte of data and have specific computing needs for this. I'm just smart enough to recognize that my usage isn't normal.

Again, Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.