8-Core Mac Pro (Clovertown)

[THX1139]

A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.

I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!

Why do people think the computing world always revolves around them? Extra cores WILL be recognized by most 3d applications and will speed up rendering. There are many other applications for multiple core use that don't include web browseing or writing email to your grandma.

peace

 

[aricher]

I think we can all read at normal size. Besides, how do you know the IT dude typed that vs. the poster just typing what he said?

I did a direct copy-paste from my IT guy's email. What a knucklehead - him not you.

 

[epitaphic]

Intel's roadmap beyond Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest

Anyone seen this?

The real architecture changes are coming June 2008, then June 2010, then June 2012. With derivatives in the years between.

So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)

And what's interesting is that each architecture change will be a leap in performance similar to Pentium D to Conroe transition. (source)

Screw Tigerton, Penryn's next (probably June 2007)

 

[ergle2]

Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.

The Chipset in the Yonah iMac is still 945, which works fine with Merom's long mode (64bit/EM64T more).

 

[faustfire]

A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.

A lot of 3d programs will use as many cores as are available when rendering.

And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.

 

[adamfilip]

A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.

I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!

No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etc

 

[craig jones]

Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?

The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about £100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.

Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.

I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.

I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.

Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.

As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.

 

[relimw]

A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.

Hehe, everybody else cited you, I suppose I will as well.

It's not that those cores won't be used. The average Joe user won't need them, it won't help you type letters any faster, and it'll do very little to help you websurf any faster (unless people keep putting bloat-ware browsers out there).
What it will help with, is people using HPC apps (BLAST comes to mind), or multi-threaded apps.

 

[ergle2]

So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)

I think you've misunderstood.

Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.

There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.

The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.

 

[mmmcheese]

Anyone seen this?

The real architecture changes are coming June 2008, then June 2010, then June 2012. With derivatives in the years between.

So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)

And what's interesting is that each architecture change will be a leap in performance similar to Pentium D to Conroe transition. (source)

Screw Tigerton, Penryn's next (probably June 2007)

Screw that, I'm not going to buy until Gesher!

 

[0098386]

Forget 3 monitors - 8 CORES. Lordy.

The move to intel was the best decision Apple made. Or just one of the very good ones.

 

[Trekkie]

does anyone know how much the clovertown chips are going to be?

if it follows typical intel transitions price point replace. So the same price as woodcrests. They might introduce faster ones though that cost more. We'll see before the end of the year.

Would it be smart to wait for these 8 core mac pros or are they still a long ways away?

Quad core is supposed to be out before EOY 2006.

Will Apple release it before then is the question...

 

[Evangelion]

The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks.

Uh, last time I checked, Windows can take advantage of multiple cores just fine. Do you think that multithreading is some Black Magic that only MacOS can do? Hell, standard Linux from kernel.org can use 512 cores as we speak!

Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.

OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!

As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support

Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!

I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.

Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.

 

[craig jones]

The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks.

As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking.

How do you know these things? Is Windows' 64-bit support sketchier than OS X's? Of course not. OS X has little 64-bit support and none at all for Intel. Windows also supports far more than 2 or 4 cores (although there are license restrictions). Windows has run on far more than 8 cores for a long, long time. You realize they have an actual presence in the server market, don't you?

 

[janstett]

Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.

I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.

First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.

Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.

On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.

In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...

 

[Half Glass]

No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etc

I don't know about this statement.

From my usage of FCP, Compressor, Aperture and DVDSP, they work very well with the MacPro but I haven't seen them approach usage of even 3 full cores.

Ability to multistask is great but I would not say that any one of the above is using all cores the way we want them to. I would contend that this is coming and pointed out in another thread that some of the FCP benchmarks on Apple's MacPro performance page are footnoted that the figures given were using Beta version of FCP.

--HG

 

[ergle2]

The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks.

As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking.

The Datacenter editions of Windows Server 2003 can handle up to 64 cores.

 

[Multimedia]

Multitasking Multitasking Multitasking Multitasking Multitasking Multitasking

A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.

No software such as, Cinema 4D, Motion, Aperture, Final Cut Pro etc

No software such as Toast 7.1, Handbrake UB. More to the point is not how many cores an application can use but rather how many things you can get done at once.

From my usage of FCP, Compressor, Aperture and DVDSP, they work very well with the MacPro but I haven't seen them approach usage of even 3 full cores.

Ability to multistask is great but I would not say that any one of the above is using all cores the way we want them to. I would contend that this is coming and pointed out in another thread that some of the FCP benchmarks on Apple's MacPro performance page are footnoted that the figures given were using Beta version of FCP.

I think in the next few months the full FCS and Logic will get an update to address this.

 

[shawnce]

As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking.

Yeah because whatever you [zero2dash] are smoking is really screwing with your mind... best to get something else.

 

[ergle2]

No software such as Toast 7.1, Handbrake UB. More to the point is not how many cores an application can use but rather how many things can you get done at once. I think in the next few months the full FCS and Logic will get an update to address this.

One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).

 

[Multimedia]

We Haven't Hit That Wall Yet • NBC Today Show Went High Definition Today!

One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).

When we hit that wall, I'll let you know.

Hey everybody the Big News is
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!

CBS Morning now looks totally pathetic. What a revolting development. CBS hires Katie and don't advance the news department to high-def while NBC totally goes High Def with Merideth. Wow! Talk about a cou-de-gras!

NBC Nightly News can't be far behind. I'm so excited. Getting my Mom a High Definition Set For Christmas.

 

[janstett]

The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks.

As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking.

Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.

BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).

The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.

 

[patrick0brien]

I smell it an option for Rev. B.

As Mac Daily News says: "Mac Pro Octo-Core. For when you absolutely, positively have to sequence the entire human genome before lunch."

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

[gugy]

NBC Nightly News can't be far behind. I'm so excited. Getting my Mom a High Definition Set For Christmas.

Hey Multimedia,
I have a question for you.
Do you record HDTV with EyeTV 500 then encode to H.264 using Handbrake and then do you add it to itunes to manage and organize those shows or movies?

I think this is a neat idea with you have the spare HD room and want to keep shows or events for long time and want to access it fast and easy.

Cheers!

 

[freezerburrn]

After reading the Anandtech article, I'm curious to know how much of a concern the FBD memory latency is to some of you, seeing that the Core 2 extreme came out on top in many of the benchmark tests.