New Core 2 Processors Around the Corner

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 4np, Dec 21, 2006.

  1. 4np macrumors 6502a

    4np

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #1
    Source: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5414
     
  2. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #2
    wow... 2.13*4*2 (in the Mac Pro) = ~17GHz (theoretical speed, not practical)

    looks like we will be putting quad core chips in all the Macs by the end of next year, if the chips are cool enough to allow it :D
     
  3. PowerFullMac macrumors 601

    PowerFullMac

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
  4. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #4
    Safari will be so snappy™ that you will get iWhiplash. :eek:
     
  5. dornoforpyros macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #5
    Is there any need for quad core chips at this time? I mean besides bragging rights? I mean I'm not gonna back myself into a corner and say "no one will ever need that much power", but it just seems like it's quite a leap ahead of most people's needs at this time.
     
  6. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #6
    I think there is. Most Mac users (and Mac users forced to use Windows machines) multitask quite a bit. Even if the applications in question aren't multithreaded, and thus able to take advantage of multiple cores, the operating system will intelligently allocate each application to a different core, making all the applications more responsive. Even if you only have 3 applications running, the 4th core can be used for operating system stuff.

    Have you ever run Mac OS X on a multi-core (and/or multi-processor) computer? Mac OS X benefits enormously from having multiple execution units available to it.
     
  7. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #7
    Nah, people need more than that. Current pros doing video work esp. encoding and rendering need every last MHz and would snap up quad-core chips in an 8-core configuration Mac Pro in an instant.

    There are a lot of people out there right now who would welcome the advances quad-core processors will bring. They're probably drooling over 8 core processors and 80 core processors and 1000 core processors.

    Anything to speed up their workflow and the pros would be all over it. Imagine it, for a multi-processor aware application, going from 4 cores to 8 in a Mac Pro could lead to processing times roughly halving - what professional video/graphics/photography person wouldn't jump all over that?
     
  8. dllavaneras macrumors 68000

    dllavaneras

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    Caracas, Venezuela
    #8
    If you ever have to wait for your computer to finish something, then yes, we need that much power :D Ideally, you would be the one holding back your computer, not the other way around.
     
  9. islandman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    #9
    A MacBook Pro with a Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHz sounds nice enough....
     
  10. dornoforpyros macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #10
    yeah I'm on a dual g5 at work and I've got a 2.33ghz MacBook Pro at home. So I'm not arguing about the merits of multiple core/processors. I can just see post showing up on MR in a year "do I need an octo mac or will a quad core do? oh yeah I plan on using the mac for checking my e-mail and maybe using iLife occasionally"

    Although as others have pointed out video professionals can never seem to get enough computing power. So I suppose there is a market for it, my tiny little graphic designer brain just can't wrap itself around the idea of 8 cores :p
     
  11. mcarnes macrumors 68000

    mcarnes

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    USA! USA!
    #11
    I'm waiting for 16 cores myself. Then maybe Address Book won't be so damn sluggish.
     
  12. deputy_doofy macrumors 65816

    deputy_doofy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    #12
    For the first time in a long time, I'm not watching processor updates. Because I don't do anything extremely processor demanding, the C2D machine I have right now will last me a good, long time. For that matter, my dp G5 also slices stuff up like a hot knife through butta. Think I'm good for awhile. :D
     
  13. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #13
    We're going to need these for when they release iTunes 8, if the bloating of iTunes 7 is any indication. :D
     
  14. munchmime macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    #14
    Speed is the path to the dark side. Speed leads to bloating. Bloating leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering... speed matters not, judge me by my speed, do you?

    ehhh... just babble, but you get the gist. the more speed we get the more stuff they cram into programs. then it's like we are back to fcp on a g2 thinking that it's awesome!, and nothing can top it. fear iTunes 8 i do. 7 has ventured in to the darkside. but ig you could run fcp yes the original, natively on a nice brand me pro model, you would have, perhaps a shuttle launch type of heat to melt just a stick of butter? then we would say wow. thats fast.

    we are just sheep. they put it out and we drool.
     
  15. exabytes18 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Location:
    Suburb of Chicago
    #15
    Those are all Conroe and Kentsfield. Currently, there is no place for them in the Mac lineup. Of course, those will always be welcome in my computer, which they will be needed to run Vista. :)
     
  16. freebooter macrumors 65816

    freebooter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Location:
    Daegu, South Korea
    #16
    Now, that is funny! I want those 16 cores to convert Colbert to iPod in, like, no time flat.
     
  17. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #17
    I feel that in many ways, we already are. It takes me more time to make a decision and then UNDO or tweak it a few times than it does for my computer to process it, although I don't do video work.

    What are you talking aboot? Regular iTunes updates that are 30-40 MB each is perfectly acceptable. :rolleyes:

    I think iPhoto has required me to download around 500 MB of updates since I first got it a few years ago.
     
  18. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #18
    I was talking about the program itself, not the downloads. My dual G5 sometimes feels inadequate for iTunes, and all I want to do is play some mp3s. Every update seems to bolt more stuff on, cause iTunes to launch slower, and require more resources to run.
     
  19. emotion macrumors 68040

    emotion

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #19
    L7400 (1.5GHz dual core, low voltage, 4MB of cache) is a core 2 duo that Apple could make use of. That's due in January. Ultra portable anyone?
     

Share This Page