Power Efficient Quad-Core Xeons

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Mar 12, 2007.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    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.

    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.
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
    #2
    Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    spicyapple

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #3
    I wet my Hoff™ pants. :) No seriously, this is extremely good news. It all fits in my master plan, muhahah.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #4
    Maybe we'll see Apple's Online Store update tomorrow... It sure seems like it's been a while.
     
  5. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #5
    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
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #6
    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?
     
  7. macrumors G3

    bigandy

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Location:
    Murka
    #7
    sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me :D
     
  8. macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #8
    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!
     
  9. macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #9
    The new Quad iMac? :D :cool:

    Or is there a non-Xeon equevalent of 4-core CPU?
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago - West 'Burbs
    #10

    my thought also...

    wouldn't have to wait till the 4 core version in 2008 - could do it now if they wanted to change the imac to the macpro motherboard.....

    Just A Guess...
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    iJawn108

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    #11
    mac cube pro ;)
     
  12. macrumors 603

    Rocketman

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Claremont, CA
    #12
    Before Multimedia chimes in, has the Stokley-Seaburg chipset been released yet?

    Rocketman
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #13
    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?
     
  14. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Location:
    New York City
    #14
    The non Xeon 4 core is called codenmame Kentsfield, and it's sold under the name Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Intel Core 2 Extreme XQ6800 for the faster version. This is the desktop version of the chip.

    I hope that by the time the Mac Pro gets a refresh, that they will introduce low power 2.66 GHz quad cores. 2.66 Ghz is the sweet spot for high performance and reasonable cost.

    On February 27th, Yahoo News had a story about Intel's plans. Intel said that they would release the Seaburg chipset in the second half of '07. That means we can expect the new Mac Pros in June. :( I am hoping that Apple's special relationship with Intel will mean an earlier release date.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    #15
    I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

    I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.
     
  16. macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #16
    That my friend is business. Intel & AMD or in constant competition with each other, which brings about innovation.

    I understand you feel that your MacBook is outdated already but that's the computer industry. Now that Apple ditched IBM and PPC, it is subject to the same trends as regular PCs.
     
  17. 4np
    macrumors 6502a

    4np

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #17
    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!

    source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2102526,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594
     
  18. macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    macbook pro: 14 months, 2 versions
    macbook: 10 months, 2 versions
    mac pro: 6 months, 1 version
    imac: 14 months, 2 versions
    mac mini: 13 months, 2 versions

    As far as intel goes in that time span, we've seen core duo, core 2 duo, dual core xeon, and quad core xeon.

    Every other week...? :confused:
     
  19. macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #19
    a MBP is faster than a G5 quad? hard to believe! what app did you test?

    aside of that i hope that intel releases new chips frequently and by that bring about innovation. i would like to see updates to the macs every 3-4 month insted of every 6-8 month. this would also drive down the insanely high prices for used macs.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    #20
    It's such a weird sentiment, wanting things to slow down. I 'switched' in 2005, after many many months of wanting to switch but having no idea when the G5's would be replaced, and having no news out of IBM or Apple on that score. The announce of the Intel switch and the inevitability of rapid, predictable product updates that would bring was an enormous breath of fresh air -- it also prevented me from buying an expensive G5 that would be wayyyy obsolete compared to the Intels (a cheap Mini was fine as long as there were potentially Windows-compatible Intel Macs in the near future). An extremely sluggish, always incremental update schedule may give you more peace of mind in your purchase, and it may help Apple's bottom line by convincing people there's no sense waiting to buy, but ultimately stagnation is not good for the consumer. Just because a product hasn't been updated doesn't mean it's up to date.

    And anyway, there have been only two updates since the Intel switch, Core and Core 2; and Core was always understood to be a stopgap, intermediate step. The updates to the processors and motherboards coming this year are of an incremental nature; the next real "G4->G5"-comparable update is in 2008, with Nehalem (or "Core 3", as I'd imagine it will be called).
     
  21. macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #21
    Did you mean to quote me, or the poster that I quoted? I wouldn't want Intel (or AMD for that matter) to slow down anything.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    zero2dash

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Location:
    Fenton, MO
    #22
    I'd rather have the faster processors. ;)
    Suck up the juice! Greenhouse gases! Kill the ozone! There's deadlines to be met! :D j/k
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    pgwalsh

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    #23
    Lovely. :rolleyes:
     
  24. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #25
    In this case "Power Effcient" is marketing hype...

    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.
     

Share This Page