8-Core Mac Pro (Clovertown)

[ergle2]

No, one that just ignores you and your inquiries because it was already clear where you were coming from..thus I feel no obligation to engage you in my thought process and your self important questioning. Has nothing to do with my maturity, and everything to do with my lack of caring about you or your opinion.

Ah, a response that is pompous, imperious, petulant, inconsistent AND incorrect -- you didn't ignore me, after all, you were simply obnoxious and evasive with a serious of ridiculous replies.

Nice projection with the "self-important", though.

Where I was coming from was purely from a sense of curiosity as to why someone would apparently feel that technology can advance too quickly. It's not unobvious, I grant you, but a rather unobjectionable query to my mind.

Interestingly, it would appear you do care enough about my opinion - or perhaps that of other forum denizens? - to respond in a way you apparently consider to be "clever". Feel free to ignore me -- really, I can take it! I mean, I'm sure I'll probably suffer a couple of seconds of heartbreak sometime around, say, 2020, but I'll survive.

Oh and "thought process" - ROTFL - lovely!

 

[patrick0brien]

Umm. What happened in here?

Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.

 

[ergle2]

...except that he's a she...a demi-goddess.

She certainly has the attitude of one.

Frequent updates are a good thing. I would not want to stop the march of progress just so I could personally feel better about a little money I spent.

The only real downside I see is that Intel Macs are unlikely to hold their value anywhere near as well as the PPC line did due to the quicker changes we'll see now.

I keep systems til they fall apart, pretty much, but there's quite a few on the various forums who say they always buy and sell 2-3 years later to upgrade.

 

[ergle2]

Umm. What happened in here?

Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.

True enough.

I ... well, I won't go there, too likely to throw more fuel on the fire.

I'll drop it if she does, fair enough?

 

[brianus]

So - are you inferring that Windows 2000 or Windows XP never blue screen? Because (if you are) that's a load of crap. I've seen blue screens in both OS's. Granted it's usually tied to hardware only, but it still happens. I've had an external USB drive blue screen in XP every time I turned it on, tried on 3 XP computers. Hardware fault, no doubt. Lately my HP Laptop dvd drive has been causing XP Pro to blue screen every other time I insert a dvd-r. Again - hardware fault.

Otherwise are both OS's stable? Damn straight. But problems do occur and I hope you're not suggesting otherwise. No OS is without its flaws.

Huh? When did I say they never, ever experience any crashes whatsoever? Good god, I have never seen such a collection of mind-bendingly literal-minded people in one thread. Yikes. No idiot would ever say they never ever crash. As was painfully obvious, I was comparing Mac users' perceptions of older Windows OS's to the more recent ones and saying their impressions were inaccurate. I've been dealing with OS X kernel panics and CarbonLib issues all day, but I would never suggest things are as bad as in the OS 8 days when you'd get that little "bomb" at the system would shut down.

It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.

One thing I've noticed is that store ads no longer quote GHz like they used to, but rather processor model numbers. Makes sense: most people will not bother to investigate further, but if they did see the GHz numbers of Pentiums on the same sale ad as those of Core 2's, they might not be so hot on the latter. And please, everyone for the love of god, do not treat me to 5 replies in which you remonstrate me for not getting that the Core 2's are actually faster - I GET IT.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

hey ill be happy as apple keeps the mac pro on the cutting edge, but anything to be able to bring the ram cost down would be awesome.

this buffered ram is expensive.

all the other ram out there is getting cheaper, but not this stuff they want in the mac pro.

 

[ksz]

The only real downside I see is that Intel Macs are unlikely to hold their value anywhere near as well as the PPC line did due to the quicker changes we'll see now.

I keep systems til they fall apart, pretty much, but there's quite a few on the various forums who say they always buy and sell 2-3 years later to upgrade.

I should have been more thorough in my previous reply. What I really like about these frequent updates are the following:

1. The motherboard has socketed processors (except for the laptops).

2. Even though Intel is updating processors every 6 months or so, the motherboard and chipset seem to support the next processor version.

Yonah can be replaced with Merom.
Woodcrest can be replaced with Clovertown.

Your computer does not become obsolete in 6 months. Instead, it gains new life if you decide that you need the new processor.

Every 12 to 18 months or so a new chipset may become necessary. Only then does your computer lose the upgrade potential. If you buy Merom, you may not be able to upgrade to the next processor. Likewise if you buy Clovertown. New chipsets will be required beyond Merom and Clovertown.

In any event, this is based on trailing history of just 1 year. Future events may unfold differently.

 

[ergle2]

I should have been more thorough in my previous reply. What I really like about these frequent updates are the following:

1. The motherboard has socketed processors (except for the laptops).

Yeah, an upgradable processor socket is a wonderful thing
It's a shame the laptops are soldered, but it makes sense given the design...

2. Even though Intel is updating processors every 6 months or so, the motherboard and chipset seem to support the next processor version.

Yonah can be replaced with Merom.
Woodcrest can be replaced with Clovertown.

Your computer does not become obsolete in 6 months. Instead, it gains new life if you decide that you need the new processor.

Every 12 to 18 months or so a new chipset may become necessary. Only then does your computer lose the upgrade potential. If you buy Merom, you may not be able to upgrade to the next processor. Likewise if you buy Clovertown. New chipsets will be required beyond Merom and Clovertown.

In any event, this is based on trailing history of just 1 year. Future events may unfold differently.

Yeah -- tho' some of this might not please some due to philosophy.

Bear in mind part of the Mac philosophy from the start was "no user servicable parts inside" -- think of it as the computing equivalent of a toaster, in a sense. Jobs and Raskin were both proponents of that concept, and it lives in in some of the userbase.

I suspect that part of the userbase would prefer being able to sell an old system and buy a new one.

Now, that's not my worldview, but it's definitely out there.

Going back, often newer processors are release, at least initially, in multiple forms of package. Take the Pentium-4, which appeared for some versions as both a S478 and S775 (I think? or was there one inbetween?) chip. So even when there's a new chipset, it's not always required, it'll just give you some whizz-band new features.

With Merom, you're likely right, since that's part of the mobile line, and Intel sells the mobile line by platform (well, you can get it OEM too, but it's a lot cheaper if you just buy the platform).

 

[ksz]

Jobs and Raskin were both proponents of that concept, and it lives in in some of the userbase.

I had the pleasure of meeting Jef Raskin at his home in Pacifica a year before he passed away. He loved to play musical instruments and performed a short recital on his piano. Later that evening, after showing his Apple I in a wooden box, he encouraged me to read his book The Humane Interface and let him know what I thought about it. Sadly, I wasn't able to do that in time. But the conversation we had made it clear that he was not a fan of Steve Jobs. They both had strong opinions on various aspects of UI design. Even though I rather like OS X, Raskin politely argued against the inefficiencies of that design.

It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.

 

[ergle2]

I had the pleasure of meeting Jef Raskin at his home in Pacifica a year before he passed away. He loved to play musical instruments and performed a short recital on his piano. Later that evening, after showing his Apple I in a wooden box, he encouraged me to read his book The Humane Interface and let him know what I thought about it. Sadly, I wasn't able to do that in time. But the conversation we had made it clear that he was not a fan of Steve Jobs. They both had strong opinions on various aspects of UI design. Even though I rather like OS X, Raskin politely argued against the inefficiencies of that design.

It was some time ago and I don't remember all the details from that night, but Raskin, I think, was more scientific in his approach. He preferred to study user response rates, time-to-decision, amount of eye movement, amount of pointer movement, number of mouse clicks, and various other factors that might contribute to 'dead' or wasted time.

It doesn't surprise me he was no fan of Jobs, especially given the history of the original Mac. From people I know who've worked with Jobs, he's not always easy to get along with.

From what I've read, the Mac was fundamentally quite different from Raskin's original vision after Jobs took over the project, though some of his ideas were obviously incorporated into it. (I believe Raskin wanted to go with the cheaper but obviously slower 6809).

His book's been one I've meant to track down for some time now. You know how it is, so many things to do/see...

The Archy interface modelled on his concepts is quite interesting, too.

I was sorry when we lost Jef, I feel he was one of those people striving to make the world a better place.

What did you think of The Humane Design?

 

[zoran]

well its said that clovertown will be here early 2006, is that early/late november or early/late december, any new rumors regarding this subject?

 

[AppliedVisual]

Intel is supposed to start shipping Clovertown CPUs into the retail channel by mid-november. We should see systems based on them by then too -- HP is claiming to have their first Clovertown workstations available on the 15th, so only a month away. I bet we'll see the 8-core Mac Pro systems by the end of November.

 

[zoran]

HP is claiming to have their first Clovertown workstations available on the 15th, so only a month away. I bet we'll see the 8-core Mac Pro systems by the end of November.

Why would Apple show their Clovertown workstations after HP and not simultaneusly with HP?

 

[AppliedVisual]

Why would Apple show their Clovertown workstations after HP and not simultaneusly with HP?

Because that's usually how it works.

HP is Intel's main launch partner for the quad-core Xeon and I think they have secured the first of the major shipments.

 

[l4t13]

still very good news for high performance users

 

[zoran]

How long did macPro delay compared to HPs similar workstation?

 

[ruutiveijari]

Why would Apple show their Clovertown workstations after HP and not simultaneusly with HP?

Because HP is a much bigger company with much bigger sales volume and probably gets all the new processors before Apple does.

 

[AppliedVisual]

How long did macPro delay compared to HPs similar workstation?

HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...

 

[.a]

... hmmm ... i just ordered a mac pro quad 3ghz ... 8 cores would be somehow nicer
.a

 

[zoran]

... hmmm ... i just ordered a mac pro quad 3ghz ... 8 cores would be somehow nicer
.a

cancel the order while its not too late!

 

[AppliedVisual]

... hmmm ... i just ordered a mac pro quad 3ghz ... 8 cores would be somehow nicer
.a

The 8-core Mac Pro @ 2.33GHz should be about the same price as the quad-core 2.66GHz. Theoretically, the 8-core 2.66GHz should be about the same price as what you just ordered.

Before you seriously consider canceling, just be sure that your workflow can benefit from the various CPU cores. Very few applications can take advantage of dual-core CPUs, let alone quad-core. In most situations, you need to be running various instances or multiple apps at once that can handle 2 or more threads to benefit from these newer multi-core systems. If you do any 3D animation or heavy rendering, scientific computing, visualization, massive database management/development, etc... You may be a candidate. Depending on your requirements, a quad-core 3GHz may still be the best performing system for you.

 

[ddekker]

8 core

I heard Leo Laporte talking about this on his KFI podcast... exciting... one question... how many softwares take advantage of multi cores? I understand that the OS can deal with it for multi tasking, but how many programs multi thread?

DD

 

[AppliedVisual]

I heard Leo Laporte talking about this on his KFI podcast... exciting... one question... how many softwares take advantage of multi cores? I understand that the OS can deal with it for multi tasking, but how many programs multi thread?

DD

Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.

 

[SMM]

HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...

It makes sense for Apple not to offer the 5000 series with their 1066 Max FSB. They were pretty quick to market for the MP with the 5100 Woody's release. It is curious that the XServe is not released yet. Perhaps, they are waiting for the Clovertown? I cannot imagine any unusual technical issues for not making the 5100 available by now.

 

[janstett]

Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.

What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.

First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.

The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).

Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.

So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.

The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.

But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.