8-Core Mac Pro (Clovertown)

[scottlinux]

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

The Today show is an embarrassment. The US major tv networks do not have any real morning news programs. How to trim your dog's ears and an inside look into American Idol contestants is NOT NEWS. It is an entertainment talk show.

 

[ergle2]

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.

There's a bunch of HP Superdome 64-way Itanium systems around running Windows Server 2003, mostly for MS SQL work.

Windows XP 64bit is based on the same core. Given the license is per-socket, not per-processor (currently, anyway) and the Pro editions support two sockets, it should in theory support the 8-way setup as described by Anandtech.

Whether it recognises quad-core CPUs as such may of course be a different matter.

 

[epitaphic]

I think you've misunderstood. Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same.

Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.

So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?

From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.

 

[savar]

NOT TRUE....The Quad core G5 people are in an uproar because Logic Pro only uses 2 cores on the G5....they updated Logic Pro so it uses 4 cores, but the G5 Quad still only uses 2 cores....there are also photoshop actions that are NOT multi core aware so will only run on one core.....Hopefully 10.5 will make all this irrelevant.

You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.

In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.

 

[ergle2]

So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?

From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.

I believe you've got it backwards. Penryn is a derived arch (check the diagram) -- it's derived from Conroe/Merom, etc., ie it's based on them with "more" -- faster FSB, more cache, a die shrink (which is technically less... ) etc.

Unified just means the micro-arch itself the same rather than the entire CPU. This is already true of Core2, and is significantly cheaper in terms production costs. Merom/Conroe are literally the same core in a different package, specified for different voltage/clockspeeds. I'm not sure if Woodcrest is but it seems highly likely.

The one oddity I am aware of is Allendale isn't a Conroe with half the cache disabled, it's actually a specific die. The rest of the microarch itself is the same, however.

Nehalem, etc. aren't derived because they're a new microarch. (Interestingly, Nehalem was originally intended for launch early 2007).

CSI replacing FSB was originally planned for 2006 in older roadmaps. It now looks like a 2008 debut with Tukwila (Itanium, not x86), and will no doubt work its way down from there.

 

[ergle2]

You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.

In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.

Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.

I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.

Regular desktops, not so much.

Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.

 

[amin]

The MP is so overkill for my needs right now, I wonder if I'd even notice the difference. I think I'll wait for 32 cores before I update!

 

[ATD]

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.

Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.

 

[ergle2]

The MP is so overkill for my needs right now, I wonder if I'd even notice the difference. I think I'll wait for 32 cores before I update!

In my experience, single to dual is a huge step up because the interactive response feels much snappier (esp on Windows, but that's not terribly relevant).

After that it gets less noticable -- but then, most long-term CPU bound work isn't interactive anyway, games aside

 

[iSee]

Damn! That's just cool (well, cool in a very geeky sort of way ).

 

[bob5820]

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.

According to tha Anandtech article its likely that the Clovertown family will be clocked slower then the Woodcrests

 

[Trekkie]

According to tha Anandtech article its likely that the Clovertown family will be clocked slower then the Woodcrests

clock speed isn't everything. workload dependant of course.

 

[suneohair]

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.

Didn't you get the memo, Hyperthreading was a joke.


On to this post. The current Mac Pro is not going to be upgraded. Nor will Quad be making its debut, at least at the current price points, anytime soon. It may be offered as a very expensive upgrade but thats about it looking ahead a year.

So for those who bought now, it was a good choice. When the time comes and cost is low they can take that next step and upgrade.

 

[suneohair]

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.

Dual core isnt transitioning into quad core anytime soon. Quad core chips will probably be a very high end part for quite sometime.

This isnt going to be akin to the Core Duo --> Core 2 Duo changeover. Cores are increasing which means price will increase.

 

[suneohair]

clock speed isn't everything. workload dependant of course.

You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.

If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.

Another example would be this: Today Apple decides to go back to plain, bulky ipods, no color, no photos. Just monochrome and music. Would anybody go for it? Probably not. You just can't step back in tech today.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure the octo core would out perform the current quad anyday given the right apps. But when people see that Ghz number go down...

 

[aarond12]

HyperThreading

Didn't you get the memo, Hyperthreading was a joke.

Obviously, since Intel is no longer creating new processors with HT.

By the way, previous poster, HT does not double the number of cores. Just the number of virtual cores. A Pentium 4 system with HT will run slower than a dual Pentium 4 system (with HT disabled) at the same clock speed.

Dual-core means there are essentially two separate CPUs on a single die.

Oh, and to the IT person who didn't know Clovertown is 64-bit... congratulations. You've shown everyone that you have an exceedingly small penis in having to argue that a $3000 Mac is slower than a $30,000 Windows DataCenter Edition PC system.

-Aaron-

 

[ssamani]

DAMN

so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while"

I'll be mostly surfing the web to simultaneously stream multiple TV channels, download HD movies and video chat with friends with a live video substitution background and maybe editing a 16 Megapixel camera phone photo and the odd HD camcorder movie once in a while.

Hey, as Steve said, 128K is more than anyone will ever need...

 

[ergle2]

Obviously, since Intel is no longer creating new processors with HT.

By the way, previous poster, HT does not double the number of cores. Just the number of virtual cores. A Pentium 4 system with HT will run slower than a dual Pentium 4 system (with HT disabled) at the same clock speed.

Actually, many tasks were faster.

HyperThreading was thrown in to mask other deficiencies in the NetBurst arch by exploiting resources that were otherwise wasted.

There were a few cases where HT ran slower when HT first debuted, but with OS scheduler tweaks and BIOS updates (microcode changes, likely), HT was a net win in most cases.

Core 2 doesn't have the same design issues - mostly down to that excessively long pipeline - that Prescott had, and hence HT makes no sense.

The problem, however, lay with Netburst as a whole, rather than HT -- which offered a minor improvement in performance - a band-aid if you will.

 

[ssamani]

Re: software not using all cores

I have to say that I think a lot of people have missed the point around various software not using all the cores. There is a simple reason. Developing multi threaded apps is hard. And until recently (~1 yr since G5 Quad) developing for more than 2 simultaneous threads (cores or processors) was pretty pointless on a Mac and completely pointless on a PC. Why would a developer bother to develop for more than two thread unless they expect threads to get blocked easily or there to be more than two cores? That's why browsers are one of the few genuine multithreaded apps, rather than 2-4 threads, the threads block easily, so having multiple makes sense. In a lot of cases where there was the opportunity for parallelism using a vector processing unit often makes more sense than multiple threads. Why spend development and testing effort on a solution with no hardware to even test it on, let alone deliver and make use of?

The whole industry is taking a 90 degree turn and the tools for developing multithreaded applications are not up to scratch. Look at some of the commentary about XBox 360 and PS3 development.

The dev tools will come, the software will catch up with the hardware, in the meantime just be glad that you can play your stolen MP3's and browse your pr0n without interfering with each other and stop whinging.

 

[Willis]

One could run a Folding@Home process on each core

ooooor.... use multiple cores to do one fold... 4 days like my g5 would cut down to like 16 hours... thats mental. awesome... but god damn mental!!

 

[stapler]

I doubt anybody runs more than eight really hardcore apps at once.

 

[Multimedia]

Use DVDs Not iTunes Nor H.264 Because Of Lower Quality & Bloated File Sizes

Hey Multimedia, 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.

I don't use H.264 because the previous max res allowed to go on an iPod with it was 320x240 which would upscale to a TV poorly. Now I will continue to not use it because the file sizes are more than twice what I can make without it.

The author of Handbrake is going to have to make some changes to it before we can use H.264 judiciously. I currently use the FFmpeg 2-pass encoding at bitrates around 750kbps for SD @ 544x400 and 1000kbps @ 624x352 for HD. These are dimensions that fall within the upper limit pixel count that will still load and play on an iPod 230,000. This way they upsacle to a TV well and still play on iPod.

I don't use iTunes much. I am burning DVDs of all these files. 12 one hour shows fit on a DVD @ 351 per 42 minute Ads edited out episode. Movies I can get to 702MB - one CD size each. Personal message me if you need more details.

 

[drsmithy]

Mac OS X distributes threads and processes across cores/CPUs to optimize performance already. (Subject to some limitations, as noted already.)

[...]

(Note: I keep specifying 'Mac' here. There is a reason. Windows isn't as good at multithreading/processing yet...)

Uh, no. Windows NT is better at multithreading - and particularly multiprocessor scheduling - largely because it's been doing it for a lot longer and on a lot more powerful hardware. NT was running on quad-processor machines a decade ago.

Prior to 10.4, OS X had roughly the same level of SMP support Windows NT had back around the 1993 - 95 timeframe, with Windows NT 3.x.

The improvements in 10.4 start to put it in the ballpark of NT 4.0, ca. 1996.

10.5 will probably put it on par with Windows 2000, maybe XP.

 

[drsmithy]

Would Windows use the extra 4 cores?

Yes. Windows NT was running on machines with eight processors several years before OS X was even released.

Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support;

Windows supported 64 bit platforms and dual core CPUs long before OS X did.

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

That's probably because you're not interested in reading anything that might portray Microsoft in a non-negative light.

You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup?

The people who have been running Windows on 8, 16, 32 and 64 processor systems for many years already seem to think they did.

Windows has much better multiprocessor capabilities than OS X does - and has done since before OS X was released.

 

[Multimedia]

Process Not Content • The Medium Not The Message

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

The Today show is an embarrassment. The US major tv networks do not have any real morning news programs. How to trim your dog's ears and an inside look into American Idol contestants is NOT NEWS. It is an entertainment talk show.

My post of this news has nothing to do with content. It is a historic moment in the evolution of television. If you don't think so, then you are paying way too much attention to the content and not enough to the process by which they are conveying that content.