8-Core Mac Pro Details Emerging?

[shawnce]

My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all.

In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.

What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.

...some what a nonsensical statement...

Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.

Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.

The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).

Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Therefore current Mac Pro users may be able to upgrade to 8-core machines upon availability of the new chips

Emphasis mine. Whaddaya mean 'may'? Anandtech confirmed that they work.

Oh, and as for quad-core laptops? Not any time soon. Sorry. We'll see quad-core Xeons this year, maybe a quad core 'Core 2 Extreme' this year, followed by a few desktop 'Core 2 Quadro's next year.

The big problem is that the early quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in the same package. So not only are they big (you CAN'T fit four Conroes on a Socket 775 package, so we WON'T be seeing similar eight-core chips until a die shrink,) but they draw almost exactly twice as much power as the same GHz dual-core chip. That already will already push the Xeons and Core 2s to the thermal envelope that was hit by the NetBurst based models. So we'll have to wait for a die shrink before we see quad-core in any of the 'consumer' desktop Macs or laptops. (The die shrink is scheduled for late next year.)

 

[avkills]

I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily.

Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea.

-mark

 

[kingtj]

Too much Mac?

I think he was probably just trying to say the same thing I've been saying about my new Mac Pro too. The OS and apps need to do some catching-up so we can fully utilize what we paid for!

Right now, the hardware is *way* ahead of the software in most respects. (We're still waiting another year for major apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop to go universal binary - much less see them coded for optimal use of a 4 or 8-core machine!)

You could argue that "I should have just bought an iMac." I suppose, but show me an iMac with a graphics card like the ATI X1900XT 512MB in it, or the ability to hold multiple internal hard drives. These are features I expect from any desktop system I use as my primary computer. I also already owned a perfectly good Dell 24" LCD panel, so didn't really want to buy a machine with the display built-in.

Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?

 

[Multimedia]

How To Easily and FULLY HOSE 8 Cores NOW

I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily. Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea. -mark

Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously

All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.

I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.

 

[dante@sisna.com]

Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.

When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors — let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example — what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?

Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me.

In illustrator CS2 you would notice some improvement over a single processor machine on complex tasks such as use of the 3D tool and vector based special effects such as glow or shadow -- I would guess about 15% improvement -- I use illustrator daily and have tracked these processes via activity monitor.

I would bet that CS3 and versions after that will be optimized to use these processors.

I run Illustrator on a Quad G5 now and it makes a siginificant difference over the Dual G5's.

Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.

I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.

I will be on this thread until the Mac Pro Clovertown option ships.

This is the Mac Pro I have been waiting for.

Amen! Me Too! Quad G5 is just fine for now!

 

[brianus]

Hey here's a question: what comes after Clovertown? The roadmap is kinda confusing after that from what I've seen. When can we reasonably expect Clovertown's successor, and what will it consist of?

I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in 2007, past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?

 

[imperium]

Hey Multimedia

We miss you over on the "WTF? Where's my C2D MBP?" thread! Good luck with your 8-core wait..

 

[ChrisA]

What incentive does anyone ever have to buy if they keep announcing new chips?

What incentive? Money. If you need to get some work out to a client you need to have some kind of computer. For example we bought a new Dual Xeon system with 4GB RAM and a set of SCSI disks because the old box was "way slow" now I can do many more Build/Test/Debug cycles every day. Yes there are now even faster boxes but I've gotten much more work done that had we waited would not have gotten done. The $4500 computer paid for it self rather quickly

On the other hand if a computer is to be used as a game console and media player you can never justify the price. It's just a toy and you buy it with "disposable" income with no hope of a return on the investment

But most of these Mac Pros are sold to people who at least hope to make more money with the machine than they spent for it. So for most users waiting is simply to expensive.

Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space?

How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.

The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.

 

[Multimedia]

Tigerton Is The Quad-Core Successor to Clovertown-MP In Spring 2007

Hey here's a question: what comes after Clovertown? The roadmap is kinda confusing after that from what I've seen. When can we reasonably expect Clovertown's successor, and what will it consist of?

I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in 2007, past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?

Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.

 

[brianus]

Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.

I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?

 

[uzombie]

Prices...

Since the 3.0ghz Woodcrest is now about $875 (street), I am betting it will drop another $100 when the Clovertown 4 cores are released (Those prices are for 1000 lot each, so resellers will undoubtedly charge more). Until the Woodcrest 3.0Ghz duals hit below the $450 mark, it makes more $ense to get the CPUs you need, now. (that is in the MacPro, not as self-upgrades)

It looks like you are better off buying the mac you want, than wait for CPU prices to drop enough to build on-the-cheap (getting low-end 2.0ghz, then upgrading to X1900 and dual Clovertown 2.66 4-cores). By the time the price on those CPUs is reasonable, Apple may have a new Pro and bus. And intel wil have more cores than we need. Or atleast, the hardware is far ahead of the software written to fully utilize the cores.

We welcome the bloatware overloards!

 

[Multimedia]

Faster Dual Processor Is Better Than Slower Quad or Oct Core - NOT!

Bottom line is that if you're not doing long-form processor-intensive stuff such as 2D/3D animation rendering, video encoding, mathematical/scientific analysis, running simulations, etc. then you probably won't get much benefit from more than two cores (you'll be better off with two cores running at faster clock speeds). But if you are, eight cores will be fantastic.

Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.

I would disagree with this: My Quad G5 destroys the Dual 2.7 in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, iMovie HD, etc. No contest. Both in single app use and especially multitasking.

No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor.

 

[ATD]

I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily.

Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea.

-mark

I'm already doing 6 cpu renders. Why stop at 8, I'll take 16

 

[jsw]

...the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff.

Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?

 

[Multimedia]

I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?

If what you say is true, then yes that would be IT. Why won't Tigerton go in Summer '07 Mac Pros?

Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?

No I'm saying once you get used to the speed of a Quad and you have everyday need for all those cores, then ALL the single 2GHz DC or Dual Processor Macs are LAME. I happen to have found a burning need for as many cores as I can get my hands on this past Winter so when I turn to use the single 2GHz DC G5 PM it hits the wall of power needed in nothing flat and is crawling incredibly slowly toward the finish line all the time. Even it's basic responsiveness is considerably slower than that of the Quad's.

I'm crushing video constantly. Unusual power-all-the-time need. I need to run two, three, sometimes even four multi-core enabled processes simultaneously almost all the time and each one can use up to 3 even 4 cores on the Intel Mac Pro (I tested my apps on the Mac Pro in an Apple Store). So I am not saying it's not ok for email and browsing although that would not be possible on any of the DP or DC PMs while my video crushing operations are running as well.

That's what happend to me in January. I had a 2.5 GHz DP G5 PM and suddenly, as I really got this video crushing process rolling, I hit the wall and it was like being back in 1985 with a Mac Plus. NOTHING would work beyond crushing video very slowly. It scared me to death. In a panic, I ordered a refurb Quad G5 and thank God I did 'cause that old 2.5 GHz Dual Porcessor G5 was way underpowered for what I for what I was wanting to do all the time.

I recently went into a Fry's in Campbell just after the Mac Pros were announced. They had a sign up Apple PowerMac G5 $864.26 for the 2GHz DC same generation as the Quad but the bottom $2k model from last October '05. Couldn't pass it up. But I can tell you that it is very slow with very limited processing power compared to the Quad. I am a veteran G5 PM guy. I had the original 2GHz DP G5 like you still have, two 2.5GHz DP G5's, the Quad G5 and now most recetly, at a bargain I couldn't pass up, the 2GHz DC G5. I love 'em all. But they do not provide enough cores for the type of work I do a lot.

 

[Rocketman]

How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.

The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.

I snipped nothing.

The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell

Rocketman

 

[twoodcc]

well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)

but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?

 

[Multimedia]

I Guess November-December 8-Core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros Will Be For Sale

well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)

but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?

My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.

 

[cwe]

November or December at the latest. It will simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will be a silent upgrade.

You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.

 

[bokdol]

You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.

not mac book pro...


mac pro

 

[brianus]

If what you say is true, then yes that would be IT. Why won't Tigerton go in Summer '07 Mac Pros?

This was epitaphic's explanation:

Intel has two lines of Xeon processors:

* The 5000 series is DP (dual processor, like Woodcrest, Clovertown)
* The 7000 series MP (multi processor - eg 4+ processors)

Tigerton is supposed to be an MP version of Clovertown. Meaning, you can have as many chips as the motherboard supports, and just like Clovertown its an MCM (two processors in one package). 7000's are also about 5-10x the price of 5000's.

So unless the specs for Tigerton severely change, no point even considering it on a Mac Pro (high end xserve is plausible).

(gotta love that arbitrary terminology, huh? -- 2 processors apparently isn't "multiple").

 

[IlluminatedSage]

I don't know what apple would plan with this

easy answer would be:
1-New mid & high end mac pro. with 2 quad core cpu's

also, new mid range tower. PLEASE!! a smaller tower, less hard drive bays.
something with more desktop power than imac or mac mini, less than mac pro.

and while i hear what brian said. i hope apple can get excellent volume pricing, and get to use this in the workstations.

also maybe the core 2 extreme in the model which could be better than macmini and imac and less expensive than the mac pro.

give us a mid range upgradable mac.

 

[DrGruv1]

Now this is from DIGITIMES

Quad-core Clovertown server CPUs to appear on November 16

Intel will announce two-way quad-core server Clovertown processors, which will be marketed under the Xeon 5300-series name, on November 16, according to Taiwan-based motherboard makers. The quad-core Clovertown processors contain two dual-core Woodcrest chips housed in a single package.

The Xeon 5300 CPU family will debut with the Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5345 (2.33GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5320 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache) and E5310 (1.60GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), with unit prices ranging from US$455 to US$1,172, indicated the sources.

In addition, Intel is scheduled to launch one-way quad-core Kentsfield processors under the Xeon 3200 lineup in January 2007, the makers said. By the third quarter of next year, Intel will launch its four-way quad-core Tigerton CPUs, the makers added.

Rival AMD will announce its first dual-core server processors manufactured using 65-nanometer (65nm) process technology by the first quarter of 2007, according to the makers.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060925A5022.html

 

[AidenShaw]

static CPU affinity is usually a dumb idea

im hoping that apple has optimized leopard to be able to assign certain applications to certain cores. just like what some of the other posters have said

4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback

Unless you're doing realtime work with strict QoS demands, it's almost always better to let the OS schedule all threads across all CPUs.

In the situation you describe, your browser would slow down when mail woke up to do something - even if QT or photoshop were idle.