Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

8-Core Mac Pro with Clovertown... in November?

still nonsense

I didn't say that the 8 cores doesn't deserve $4k I said its nonsense to buy a mac pro with 2x4x2.66 while you can pay $5K and get 2 mac pro 2x2x2.66 or even 2 mac pro 2x4x2ghz.
apart from the price issue lets talk about performance even intel themselves admitted that u might notice a speed decrease in programs that uses single core

"The CPU features a speed of 2.66GHz versus the previous flagship X6800's 3.0GHz, so if a program can only use a single core there will be a slight speed decrease."
said Brett Hannath, Intel's Group Manager of Solutions Marketing and Alliances.

Also check those tests
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=83846&afterinter=true

you will find that 2x2x3 out performed the 2x4x2.66 in two of the after effects tests and 2x4x2.66 wins the other 3 tests with average of 2% - 5%

I'm not trying to prove that dual core is better than quad I'm just trying to make things more reasonable and look at things in a realistic way.

Finally talking about history, at that time things where just exclusively apple but now apple uses Intel so it has to stay within the price range of its competitors.
 
I Know What I Want To Run Multiples Of Applications That Can Use Up To 4 Cores Each

sbaik said:
I didn't say that the 8 cores doesn't deserve $4k I said its nonsense to buy a mac pro with 2x4x2.66 while you can pay $5K and get 2 mac pro 2x2x2.66 or even 2 mac pro 2x4x2ghz.
apart from the price issue lets talk about performance even intel themselves admitted that u might notice a speed decrease in programs that uses single core

"The CPU features a speed of 2.66GHz versus the previous flagship X6800's 3.0GHz, so if a program can only use a single core there will be a slight speed decrease."
said Brett Hannath, Intel's Group Manager of Solutions Marketing and Alliances.

Also check those tests
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=83846&afterinter=true

you will find that 2x2x3 out performed the 2x4x2.66 in two of the after effects tests and 2x4x2.66 wins the other 3 tests with average of 2% - 5%

I'm not trying to prove that dual core is better than quad I'm just trying to make things more reasonable and look at things in a realistic way.

Finally talking about history, at that time things where just exclusively apple but now apple uses Intel so it has to stay within the price range of its competitors.
Click to expand...
I've already done my tests and I know that what I want to run most of the time can use all 8 cores because I need to run multiple copies of applications that use up to 4 cores each simultaneously today. So I don't care what the tests say about this, that and the other thing. I already know that my particular applications will use all 8 cores immediately and I will still face a queue for maximum efficiency or 2-4 processes can run much faster than on a quad even though each's speed will be compromised due to maxing out the core allocations as soon as I start a third process.

I'm sure the 8 core will do a much better job of running Dynamic Real Time with 8 video streams simultaneously in Final Cut Pro's Multi-Clip mode. Same goes for sound editing.
 
Well I did it. Just purchased a beautiful new Mac Pro 2.66 (4GB RAM, .75TB HD) for my studio as the current machines arent able to keep up with the workflow anymore and an upcoming session absolutely required more power.

After following the 8-core developments (and this thread) very closely, I feel confident that I made the right choice to buy now as I probably wouldn't benefit from 8 cores (ProTools only uses up to 2). Hope this helps anyone on the fence! Thanks to all who consistently contribute to this highly-information thread!
 
Still confused!?

Great to see this thread is still going! Thought it was dead!

I was going to order the 2.6ghz Mac Pro!

I am however holding off for a few weeks to see what happens!

If the 8-core Mac Pro is going to cost me more then the 4-core 2.6ghz model then I will go ahead and get the 4-core!

I am only willing to pay an extra $400 on top of the 2.6ghz 4-core Price!

I am already over budget! but I am hoping that the 8-core Mac Pro is released in Jan '07 and It isn't $1000 more then the 2.6ghz quad core!

What are the chances of the 8-core being cheap enough for me to buy!

My budget is 3,660.44 USD for the Mac Pro excluding a screen!
 
SRSound said:
After following the 8-core developments (and this thread) very closely, I feel confident that I made the right choice to buy now as I probably wouldn't benefit from 8 cores (ProTools only uses up to 2). Hope this helps anyone on the fence! Thanks to all who consistently contribute to this highly-information thread!
Click to expand...

You probably did just fine... Depending on your workflow and software capabilities, 8-core may not be a huge benefit to you yet. And like you said, you needed to make a purchase, sometimes that just can't be helped. If you don't run too much other software simultaneously with ProTools, then you'll have all the computing power you can hope for right now. The 8-core systems coming out (soon, hopefuly) have no more to offer in power per CPU core over current offerings and if you spend the extra money to gain more CPU cores, it does you little good if your software can't use them.
 
macmanonline said:
What are the chances of the 8-core being cheap enough for me to buy!
Click to expand...

Difficult to say... But the Mac Pro is due for a price adjustment and that may happen at MWSF. However, I would bet we don't see a real price adjustment until the 8-core systems ship... That could be anywhere from MWSF all the way up to NAB (mid-April). I have a hunch that we won't see these systems until about the end of March... I'm thinking 8-core system release along with Leopard about the end of March and we'll see new revisions of Final Cut Studio, Shake and Logic Pro at NAB.

If I had to guess, the 2.33GHz 8-core is going to ship for about the same price as the current 2.66GHz quad-core or maybe $200 cheaper. However, the base price of the system isn't going to be as significant as shifts in RAM prices. You can expect that by March/April, FB-DIMM memory prices are going to drop another 15 to 20 %. I don't know if Apple will adjust their prices that much, but (current notebook configs aside) buying RAM from Apple has typically not been the smartest thing someone could do.
 
AppliedVisual said:
You probably did just fine... Depending on your workflow and software capabilities, 8-core may not be a huge benefit to you yet. And like you said, you needed to make a purchase, sometimes that just can't be helped. If you don't run too much other software simultaneously with ProTools, then you'll have all the computing power you can hope for right now. The 8-core systems coming out (soon, hopefuly) have no more to offer in power per CPU core over current offerings and if you spend the extra money to gain more CPU cores, it does you little good if your software can't use them.
Click to expand...

Thanks :) I believe that most people would benefit from the power of 4 x 2.66GHz over 8 x 2.0GHz - I look forward to testing it out...
 
I Think Only A 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown May Be Offered In Addition To Current Line

SRSound said:
Thanks :) I believe that most people would benefit from the power of 4 x 2.66GHz over 8 x 2.0GHz - I look forward to testing it out...
Click to expand...
Definitely. And congratulations. :)

My goal is to buy a 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown. I doubt Apple will offer a 2GHz model unless they decide to make the Mac Pro a Dual Clovertown Only platform. Me thinks they'll keep the 3GHz & 2.66GHz Dual Woodies on with only one 8 core choice of the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown on "top" so to speak. Purely guessing though.
 
Stock issue?

Multimedia said:
Definitely. And congratulations. :)

My goal is to buy a 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown. I doubt Apple will offer a 2GHz model unless they decide to make the Mac Pro a Dual Clovertown Only platform. Me thinks they'll keep the 3GHz & 2.66GHz Dual Woodies on with only one 8 core choice of the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown on "top" so to speak. Purely guessing though.
Click to expand...


According to the threads posted so far, I have an impression that if Apple sell the 8-Core Mac Pro, it should well be arround Match/April 2007. But by then, the new Intel system controller chipset should be fully updated and ready along with many other updates, perhaps even with Blu-ray writer options. We all agree that there is no turning back in computer technology. Would the new 8-Core Mac Pro be redesigned totally in a new chasis inside/out!

By then the present Mac Pro system board for Intel Woodcrest may well become obsolute and only be available on an " Until the stock last " basis. This happened before here in HK when there was a short period of time (say two months of close-out sales for G5 Quad-Core Mac Pro) before the G5 Quad market was completely replace by Intel chips powered Mac Pro, just some months ago. Could the double existence of Dual Dual-Core and Dual Quad-Core powered Mac Pro be just another transitional close-out sales.

Be honest, I had missed the G5 Quad close-out sales and hoped to take advantage of this Woodcrest one. But in this months long waiting, my dear wife decide to sponsor me part of the budget so I'm very happy with my 1st Mac Pro now. Hahahaha, I'm happy man as I have my Mac now and most of all, I've my dear wife with me:D
 
Geekpatrol posted more benchmarks:

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/12/eight-core-mac-pro-benchmarks/

Consistent with the many comments here, that the benefits are real for 4+ multi-processor tasks and in need of support chip updates for normal tasks to stay competitive.

Now with the Photoshop (CS3) beta figures and these, we now know the G5 was ansd still is a mighty machine. For a while.

When die masks reduce in size, increasing mhz ratings, and support chips and memory comes to the party we will have much faster machines. In mid-2007.

Not too long from now when you think about it.

Rocketman
 
Totally BOGUS Conclusion Based On Non-Real World "Benchmarks"

Rocketman said:
Geekpatrol posted more benchmarks:

Geek Patrol Eight Core Mac Pro Benchmarks

Consistent with the many comments here, that the benefits are real for 4+ multi-processor tasks and in need of support chip updates for normal tasks to stay competitive.

Now with the Photoshop (CS3) beta figures and these, we now know the G5 was ansd still is a mighty machine. For a while.

When die masks reduce in size, increasing mhz ratings, and support chips and memory comes to the party we will have much faster machines. In mid-2007.

Not too long from now when you think about it.

Rocketman
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link. I left the first and only comment so far. This is a great example of a series of tests completely unrelated to how these 8 core Mac Pros will be used in the Real World. So far none of the creators of FrankenMac Dual Clovertown Mac Pros have published one comparative test of real world Multi-Threaded Workload examples. These bogus "benchmark" comparisons have nothing to do with how we future buyers plan on using them.

Angers me that all of these do it yourself upgraders have such little imagination that they can't run some simple real world tests of running a set of multiple applications in 4 core vs 8 core Mac Pros in order to show the immediate benefit of having more cores. Instead they seem to want to prove that 4 cores are enough. :eek: :mad:

What a crock.
 
Multimedia said:
Angers me that none of these do it yourself upgraders have such little imagination that they can't run some simple real world tests of running a set of multiple applications in 4 core vs 8 core Mac Pros in order to show the immediate benefit of having mroe cores. Instead they seem to want to prove that 4 cores are enough. :eek: :mad:

What a crock.
Click to expand...

It's always this way... Has been with multiprocessor PC systems as far back as I can remember. Seems most of these "experts" and hardware "gurus" have little clue as to what they can actually do with cutting edge CPU power. Most of them don't even have a clue how to run the applications they are testing. Some of them even think that Folding or SETI@Home provide accurate benchmark results...

It's aggravating reading through various benchmarks on these hardware sites when they run tests with popular 3D applications like 3DSMax, Maya or Lightwave and they don't even understand the insignificance of what they are testing vs. what they should be testing... It's a very rare occasion when they actually have the sense to run multiple applications simultaneously... If they do, it's always something lame like burning a CD or DVD while they download updates and watch a video. ...Or stuff that any computer could have handled 5 years ago without heating up. And they try to measure usage of multiple CPUs in that scenario and act puzzled as to why anyone would want more than one CPU. ...I honestly can't recall the last time I read a review that actaully gave a comprehensive analysis of what a system could actually do.
 
I have a suggestion. Email the guy and ask him to run particular tests.

The benchmarks DO show one thing, there is a benefit to heavily threaded programs to upgrade an EXISTING MacPro with Cloverfield. He happened to use the 2.33 Ghz versions.

Better yet, knowing the benefits are real for the applications YOU use, upgrade a MacPro NOW and get some 4-5 months of active usage. It ought to pay for itself in 2 weeks or so.

When a BETTER machine arrives, you can sell the MacPro since as we all know Macs hold their value well, and you will have a long period of low cost usage.

BTW this option was available to you since about 11-20-06.

I still want a mirror of your discs. I figure it will save me about 2 man-years on Handbrake :)

Rocketman
 
A Dual Clovertown FrankenMac Is Not An Option For Those Who Want The Best

Rocketman said:
I have a suggestion. Email the guy and ask him to run particular tests.

The benchmarks DO show one thing, there is a benefit to heavily threaded programs to upgrade an EXISTING MacPro with Cloverfield. He happened to use the 2.33 Ghz versions.

Better yet, knowing the benefits are real for the applications YOU use, upgrade a MacPro NOW and get some 4-5 months of active usage. It ought to pay for itself in 2 weeks or so.

When a BETTER machine arrives, you can sell the MacPro since as we all know Macs hold their value well, and you will have a long period of low cost usage.

BTW this option was available to you since about 11-20-06.
Click to expand...
As we both have Quad G5's this option was considered and rejected by both AppliedVisual and myself long before 11.20.06. There is no point investing in a 4 core Mac Pro if you have a Quad G5. While there may be a small improvement in speed, it isn't significant. Moreover, anyone here who thinks they are going to easily upgrade a Woodie to Clovertown is fooling themselves. You have to BREAK things to do it and it voids your warranty for sure.

The Clovertown motherboard will be different with Stoakley-Seaburg onboard among other things. A Clovertown FrankenMac will perform poorley compared to an Apple engineered Dual Clovertown Mac Pro. Anyone contemplating doing it themselves is a fool to believe it won't be a mistake or that they will save money that way.

I left them a comment that covers what I would like them to do. I'm sure they'll ignore it since it involves real world comparisons instead of benchmarks.
 
Yes These Benchmarks Are Bogus

Multimedia said:
Thank you for that link. I left the first and only comment so far. This is a great example of a series of tests completely unrelated to how these 8 core Mac Pros will be used in the Real World. So far none of the creators of FrankenMac Dual Clovertown Mac Pros have published one comparative test of real world Multi-Threaded Workload examples. These bogus "benchmark" comparisons have nothing to do with how we future buyers plan on using them.

Angers me that all of these do it yourself upgraders have such little imagination that they can't run some simple real world tests of running a set of multiple applications in 4 core vs 8 core Mac Pros in order to show the immediate benefit of having more cores. Instead they seem to want to prove that 4 cores are enough. :eek: :mad:

What a crock.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree -- these benchmarks are a total Crock of Crap.

This reminds of the bashing I took a month ago in this same post when I described how the Quad Core G5 helped my workflow between Illustrator CS2 and InDesign CS2 -- the poster told me I would be better off with a Dual Core 2.7 GHZ Machine as opposed to the Quad Core at 2.5 GHZ -- the poster pointed out to that Ilustrator was not multiprocessor aware, a fact I am well aware of from day-to-day use monitored with Activity Monitor and from reading, etc.

What the poster failed to understand is how professionals like us USE a Quad Core in the real world to achieve production goals -- this methodology is not different from how we would use a Eight Core box.

For example: I use a Quad Core like this: Load up InDesign to export a 64 page Picture Book (with very high res linked files) to Press Ready PDF -- this will take about 25 minutes. One core jumps to 100% for this duration. Next I'll move to photoshop and batch convert a bunch of images from RGB to CMYK -- Another core used at 100% and/or multiples at 25% to 50%. Next I'll apply a Gaussian Blur in Illustrator to a Banner at Full Size -- say 4 foot by 10 foot at 150 DPI -- this max's a processor out at 100% for 10 minutes. Perhaps a final task is to import a client short video into Final Cut Pro HD for editing and then export to 640 x 480 -- another processor or two or three used between 100% to 25% -- depending on what is available.

I guess most people doing the benchmarks are gear heads and not real world production artists. This could only explain their naiveness.

Dante
 
dante@sisna.com said:
Yes I agree -- these benchmarks are a total Crock of Crap.

This reminds of the bashing I took a month ago in this same post when I described how the Quad Core G5 helped my workflow between Illustrator CS2 and InDesign CS2 -- the poster told me I would be better off with a Dual Core 2.7 GHZ Machine as opposed to the Quad Core at 2.5 GHZ -- the poster pointed out to that Ilustrator was not multiprocessor aware, a fact I am well aware of from day-to-day use monitored with Activity Monitor and from reading, etc.

What the poster failed to understand is how professionals like us USE a Quad Core in the real world to achieve production goals -- this methodology is not different from how we would use a Eight Core box.

For example: I use a Quad Core like this: Load up InDesign to export a 64 page Picture Book (with very high res linked files) to Press Ready PDF -- this will take about 25 minutes. One core jumps to 100% for this duration. Next I'll move to photoshop and batch convert a bunch of images from RGB to CMYK -- Another core used at 100% and/or multiples at 25% to 50%. Next I'll apply a Gaussian Blur in Illustrator to a Banner at Full Size -- say 4 foot by 10 foot at 150 DPI -- this max's a processor out at 100% for 10 minutes. Perhaps a final task is to import a client short video into Final Cut Pro HD for editing and then export to 640 x 480 -- another processor or two or three used between 100% to 25% -- depending on what is available.

I guess most people doing the benchmarks are gear heads and not real world production artists. This could only explain their naiveness.

Dante
Click to expand...

And these are all modest requirements as compared to the next couple of years of video requirements.

Printing and graphics are a mature technology.

Bandwidth is our near future.

Rocketman
 
Video Compression-Decompression Needs May Drive Multi-Core Popularity

Rocketman said:
And these are all modest requirements as compared to the next couple of years of video requirements.

Printing and graphics are a mature technology.

Bandwidth is our near future.
Click to expand...
We'll likely see the next versions of Final Cut Studio and Logic Pro to be fully capable of using as many cores as your Mac has in it. So the phoney issue of "can't use all those cores" will be quickley usurped by the real issue of "can easily use all these cores and when will we be able to get more?"

Could be headed toward an era when video files may become highly compressed for storage and decompressed on the fly for superior quality HD playback from very small files thanks to many cores in average consumer computers. Still a few years off. But not an impossible scenario.
 
Exactly. In fact, I am betting that Final Cut will be heavily multithreaded with the next update. If they want to stay competitive, it will have to be... AVID is going through major re-writes on their Adrenaline and other higher-end products and other "low-cost" PC video apps are being rebuilt to use multiple cores (Vegas, Edius). At NAB this year, we'll see a few new cameras on the market providing 4K resolution (RED, Sony), in addition to those already available (Genesis). One or two individual CPUs are not going to cut it when you need to work with two or three streams of 4K 24p footage.

MHz isn't going to increase much over the next few years. Even with the 45nm die shrink MHz gains will be fairly small. But we'll see better power usage, better heat management and more cores. The push for the software to use more cores and become more dynamically multithreaded is here.

Anyone who still can't figure out what they would do with 4 or more CPU cores in their systems can save themselves the aggravation and buy an iMac. It will probably work just fine for them...
 
8 core & PS10

MrTed said:
Have you check this ?
http://creativebits.org/8_core_mac_pro
Seems that 8 core is better on Photoshop CS3 ...
Click to expand...

I've been using the new PS10 (beta) over the last few days.. And all I can say is its magnificiant! Great features and its fast.

Did I mention I'm testing it on a Powerbook PPC...!
Program Boots twice as fast as CS2

They did a really good job on the programming..
I can only imagine how well this will work on a Quad or even Octo.
 
Remember The 8 Core Mac Pro Will Only Be For A Few Marginal Extremists Posts?

MrTed said:
Have you check this ?
http://creativebits.org/8_core_mac_pro
Seems that 8 core is better on Photoshop CS3 ...
Click to expand...
That looks like a nail in the coffin of the naysayers who think 4 cores are enough. Considering that this is Early Beta software running on an Alpha 8 Core FrankenMac, by the time both CS3 and the Stoakley-Seaburg Dual Clovertown Mac Pro are shipping everyone who was bitching about our insistance that 8 would barely be enough for now will suddenly have a case of amnesia and probably be among the first to buy both. :p

My guess is that 49 will be closer to 30 than 50 by the time the real stuff goes on sale.

Here's a Macworld Video: Adobe Photoshop CS3 beta posted on the same site. No questions about multi-threading in the interview though. :(

PS. 2x Lite-On Blu-ray drive at Fry's $550 today - a new low price.
 

Attachments

  • 8CoreMP.PhotoshopCS3.jpg
    8CoreMP.PhotoshopCS3.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 199
16-core for me!

um....... since most of you're lucky enough alreadily running on the Quad PowerPC chip Mac, certainly an Intel 8-Core Mac Pro may seem a very logical approach. But as I have just migrate from PC to Intel Dual Dual-Core Mac Pro. Perhaps I shall wait for the Intel 16-Core or AMD 16-Core Mac Pro for my upgrades to suit my HD video migration late 2007. Be honest, we should have our HD TV boardcast starts sometime late 2007 here in HK, but which standard of HD format is not finalised yet. It may be easier for me to decide on my future 8-Core or 16-Core Mac Pro than my HD video gear! :(
 
Proof You Have No Clue What 8 Cores Are For

sbaik said:
Again another prove that 8 is not as u think.....
http://anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2897&p=9
Click to expand...

That only proves it's not as you think. It's exactly as I think.

We don't give a rat's rear what ONE application can or cannot do with it. It's about what can be done with MANY applications simultaneously or even one running in multiples. Both AudioVisual and myslef have repeated this mantra numerous times on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back