Power Efficient Quad-Core Xeons

[MacRumors]

Macworld notes that Intel is officially announcing the availability of more power-efficient quad-core Xeon processors to be available today.

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

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

No word on whether or not Apple is planning on using the newest Quad-core processors in upcoming Macs, despite persistent rumors of Apple introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro. These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

For readers interested in the top end of performance, Intel revealed last week that later this year, they will be releasing a higher end 3.0GHz version of its Quad-core Xeon for customers who aren't concerned with power consumption.

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

[HelloKitty]

Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

[spicyapple]

I wet my Hoff™ pants. No seriously, this is extremely good news. It all fits in my master plan, muhahah.

[Chaszmyr]

Maybe we'll see Apple's Online Store update tomorrow... It sure seems like it's been a while.

[arn]

I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

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

arn

[Chaszmyr]

Originally Posted by arn

I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

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

arn

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

[Teh Don Ditty]

Mmmmmmm 8 core goodness!

Power efficient = goodness too!

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

[pgwalsh]

Originally Posted by arn

I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

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

arn

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

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

[bigandy]

Originally Posted by HelloKitty

Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me

[4np]

Originally Posted by bigandy

sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me

Just what I was hoping for when I read this According to eWeek these quad-core processor consume 50-Watt; what do the current Dual Core (merom) processors in the MacBook (Pro) lines consume? Also, note my post about recently rumored intel price drops!

Intel Unveils 50-Watt Quad-core Chips

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

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

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

source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759...119TX1K0000594

[frank781]

Originally Posted by bigandy

sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me

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

[andiwm2003]

Originally Posted by frank781

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

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

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

[MongoTheGeek]

Originally Posted by bigandy

sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me

My thoughts exactly.

Its about time for me to upgrade too...

[XForge]

Originally Posted by HelloKitty

Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

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

[zero2dash]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

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

[pgwalsh]

Originally Posted by zero2dash

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

Lovely.

[Bobthemonkey]

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

[guzhogi]

I could also see these in an iMac and possibly the Macbook Pro. Anyone know how the power requirements compare to the C2D chips in the MBP and these new procs?

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

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by guzhogi

I could also see these in an iMac and possibly the Macbook Pro. Anyone know how the power requirements compare to the C2D chips in the MBP and these new procs?

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

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

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

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

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

[guzhogi]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Woodcrest64]

Well not right away but I can certainly see MacBook Pros with Quad cores in the near future.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

The new Xeon L5320 and L5310 processors consume only 12.5 watts of electricity per core, using 35-60% less power than the existing quad-core Xeons.
...
These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

Did you notice that the relative power usage is similar to relative clock speed. In other words these "power efficient" processors are just marketing hype. Making something close in speed to the Clovertown processors while using noticeably less power would be "power efficient".

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

[twoodcc]

good news! bring on the 8-cores!

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Bear

Did you notice that the relative power usage is similar to relative clock speed. In other words these "power efficient" processors are just marketing hype. Making something close in speed to the Clovertown processors while using noticeably less power would be "power efficient".

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

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

Chew on that one...

-Clive

[letaalio]

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

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