Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2007 Harpertown Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard With New Graphics Cards 8-Core Mac Pro
- Thread starter Multimedia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
It looks to me like 1600MHz FSB Harpertowns will be launched on November 12th with the 1333MHz FSB Harpertowns.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8928
Hey Pressure, looks like we can have our cake and eat it too!!!
I have a feeling the standard model will include two Xeon E5440 2.83Ghz Quad-cores (that was the price range of the processors included in the Mac Pro when it were introduced last year, $690 per processor).
Which will be plenty for me
I just want Quad-cores and some new graphic cards, then I will be set for some time to come!
I have a feeling the standard model will include two Xeon E5440 2.83Ghz Quad-cores (that was the price range of the processors included in the Mac Pro when it were introduced last year, $690 per processor).
Which will be plenty for me
I just want Quad-cores and some new graphic cards, then I will be set for some time to come!
I absolutely agree.
I also agree with what you said previously, "I wouldn't complain if it did indeed come with 1600Mhz Front Side Bus processors though."
Looking good.
There are many, many Penryn-based systems running at IDF - HP/Dell/IBM/SuperMicro/....
On announcement day, there will be lots of machines available from many parties.
I'd guess;
$2,149 Basic 4 X 2.6Ghz
$2,549 Entry 8 X 2.83GHz
$3,449 Best 8 X 3.16GHz
With 2gigs of ram in all but the basic
$2,149 Basic 4 X 2.6Ghz
$2,549 Entry 8 X 2.83GHz
$3,449 Best 8 X 3.16GHz
With 2gigs of ram in all but the basic
The 3.2Ghz Quads were never listed by anyone when the Penryn speeds and prices were comming out, however it had been said there would be 3.2GHz months before (when 1600MHz FSB was expected in 2008) and the number 5482 number has popped up a few times in articles in the past couple of weeks.
No More Quads. Which is Faster? 3 + 1.6 or 3.16 + 1.33?
None will have only 4 cores.
Are we better off with faster 3.16GHz cores + 1333 MHz FS bus or
Slower 3GHz cores + 1600 MHz FS bus?
None will have only 4 cores.
Are we better off with faster 3.16GHz cores + 1333 MHz FS bus or
Slower 3GHz cores + 1600 MHz FS bus?
In Memory Intensive Tasks (After-Effects Rendering), I wouldn't be surprised that the 1600MHZ are better clock for clock due to the much higher memory bandwidth with the new DDR2-800 FB-DIMMS.
The SandraSoft scores were off the wall as far as Memory Bandwidth goes for the 1600MHZ Chips and 800MHZ RAM.
Tracer
The SandraSoft scores were off the wall as far as Memory Bandwidth goes for the 1600MHZ Chips and 800MHZ RAM.
Tracer
I can see mainstream DDR2/3 machines still kicking FB-DIMMs around. It has been said before that FB-DIMMs are killing Intel's gains in efficient processor design and in memory performance.
Sure but they will not have the stability that the workstation gives.
Of course, most of this will be solved once Intel release Nehalem anyway.
The only question now is, after Intel kills AMD with these new products, will they continue to innovate. They should have just tasered AMD's whole marketing department at IDF. This is going to be brutal.
Good news for Mac users for the next couple of years though. Just imagine what would have happened if Apple hadn't switched to Intel. OMFG.
Good news for Mac users for the next couple of years though. Just imagine what would have happened if Apple hadn't switched to Intel. OMFG.
Yep, in fact, in environments where servers aren't being maxed out 100% of the time (which is the vast majority of enterprise servers), AMD servers are far more energy efficient then Intel servers.
Another place where amd trumps intel is in memory. The FBDIMMS hit to memory latency is fairly significant and results in Xeon machines doing much poorly then even desktop boxes on tasks where this plays a significant role.
But Nahalem will have its own memory controller, just like AMD.
If you study business strategy, its pretty clear that AMD doesn't have a chance if Intel continues to execute properly. You need profits from one market segment to fund new products in another. All Intel has to do is sell desktop and server CPUs at cost and then make profits on notebooks for three years and AMD is finished and they can do that based upon just volume, manufacturing capacity, and financial strength. The fact that Intel has better tech right now is just the last nail in the coffin.
Workstation = Stable?
Side effect of FB-DIMMs being ECC, perhaps?
It's nice to get an error log entry instead of a crash
Ah, ECC.Side effect of FB-DIMMs being ECC, perhaps?
It's nice to get an error log entry instead of a crash
Sadly, I haven't used it enough in order to say it provides a drastic benefit over standard DRAM workstations.
Intel was showing Silverthorne systems running at less than half a watt under full load today.
Penryn has a number of power saving features, and Nehalem has even more aggressive goals at reducing power consumption - particularly when lightly loaded.
And, where do you find your numbers of "far more efficient"? When I use my Watts Up? power meter to compare my ProLiant DL380g5 servers (Woodies) against my ProLiant DL385 servers (dual-core Opteron) I don't see much difference (and usually the Woodie is lower).
Another possibility...
Marketing.
If the Seaburg version coupled with 3.16 GHz CPUs might actually be 20% faster than the current crop of 3 GHz non-Seaburg MacPros, then they may hop on this right away and focus on the "20% faster marketing tag".
But... Apple may skip this first round of Penryns/Seaburg and then jump to market ahead of others with a 3.3 GHz version of this Seaburg system in January or even March/April. ---Marketing-wise, focusing on the 3.3GHz CPUs inside. Meanwhile other manufacturers will still be selling 3.16 or 3.2'ish speeds as Apple gets exclusive distribution on some faster 3.3+ CPUs.
A lot of non-technical artists focus on the GHz speed.
Marketing.
If the Seaburg version coupled with 3.16 GHz CPUs might actually be 20% faster than the current crop of 3 GHz non-Seaburg MacPros, then they may hop on this right away and focus on the "20% faster marketing tag".
But... Apple may skip this first round of Penryns/Seaburg and then jump to market ahead of others with a 3.3 GHz version of this Seaburg system in January or even March/April. ---Marketing-wise, focusing on the 3.3GHz CPUs inside. Meanwhile other manufacturers will still be selling 3.16 or 3.2'ish speeds as Apple gets exclusive distribution on some faster 3.3+ CPUs.
A lot of non-technical artists focus on the GHz speed.
- Status