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

[sterno74]

Simple swap

If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.

I saw on one of the tech sites that they dropped a sample of the quad core xeon into the mac pro and it worked perfectly. There might be some cooling issues, but given that the quads actually run at a slightly lower clock speed, I doubt it.

Getting lots of cores is nice and all, but we aren't going to be seeing the kind of steady speed improvements that we used to. Not everything is readily threadable, and the less effective the threading, the less advantage you get from having all those cores. I mean sure you can encode four different movies at the same time or something like that, but in a real world use case, does it matter?

It's going to be a while before the software catches up with the hardware so in the mean time you're better off with a lower number of high speed cores than a lot of low speed ones.

 

[Multimedia]

$300 More Than The 3GHz 4-Core Mac Pro • $450/core Vs. $625/core

I highly doubt this will be a simple swap.

Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech.

The Clovertowns are quite expensive,

Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.

not to mention slower in terms of raw clock speed, so expect it to be a high priced upgrade.

2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.

Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.

I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.

 

[sterno74]

Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?

They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores. So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.

The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.

 

[sonnys]

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.

Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.

 

[Multimedia]

I Bet You Are Mistaken • 2.66GHz Clovertowns Ship In November Before Black Friday

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite;

I know you may find this hard to believe, but the entire multimedia industry does not revolve around the Adobe Suite of graphics applications. Plus the industry is already rolling with G5 Quads for that work. There are plenty of other products that are way UB multi-core ready and/or would like to be run simultaneously in a fully blown multi-application multi-threaded workload.

and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.

Yeah. Professional Mac Pro users can't do the math.

4 x 3=12GHz

or

8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz

I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster?

Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.

I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.

Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.

Oh and welcome to MacRumors.

 

[Multimedia]

You Totally Don't Understand The Applications Ready For 8-Core Mac Pros Nor Multitask

They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores.

2.66GHz is not slower.

So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.

The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.

I am astounded by those who drop in here not understanding this technology at all. Read the thread then get back to us. Do you even understand the term Multi-Threaded Workload?

Oh and welcome to MacRumors.

 

[AppliedVisual]

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.

There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.

 

[BenRoethig]

You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.

Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.

I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.

 

[Multimedia]

Quite

I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.

ROTFLMAO You're breaking my balls Ben.

 

[ShnikeJSB]

My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!

I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?

 

[clintob]

I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?

Glossing over "heat" and "power" with a blah blah blah is probably a bit cavalier. Those are the two main issues facing notebook computers. Desktops have the advantage of infinite possibilities in terms of size, scale, cooling units, fans, and they have an infinite power source to go with it. Notebooks have to balance performance with energy constraints and heat constraints, the latter being the main issue. If you pile processors into a notebook that heat up, that heat has to dissipate somehow, so you're left with two choices: make a bigger laptop with more vents/cooling units (nobody wants that), or allow that heat to dissipate naturally which has limitations. If you ignore those limitations, you end up with a notebook that overheats, and inevitably your drives die or your motherboard cracks from heat stress.

So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.

 

[Gurutech]

On the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.

Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing.

Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.

Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.

This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.

 

[Multimedia]

Kentsfield Has Got To Force Apple's Hand

Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.

Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.

This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.

I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.

 

[ChrisA]

Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?

The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.

 

[c.hilding]

Hmm

Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.

The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.

Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.

So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968


Happy Halloween!

 

[Multimedia]

Anyone Else Remember When They Discovered How Little Power They Had With 2 Cores?

Glossing over "heat" and "power" with a blah blah blah is probably a bit cavalier. Those are the two main issues facing notebook computers. Desktops have the advantage of infinite possibilities in terms of size, scale, cooling units, fans, and they have an infinite power source to go with it. Notebooks have to balance performance with energy constraints and heat constraints, the latter being the main issue. If you pile processors into a notebook that heat up, that heat has to dissipate somehow, so you're left with two choices: make a bigger laptop with more vents/cooling units (nobody wants that), or allow that heat to dissipate naturally which has limitations. If you ignore those limitations, you end up with a notebook that overheats, and inevitably your drives die or your motherboard cracks from heat stress.

So yes, notebooks are going to start to lag behind desktops more and more as multiple cores start to proliferate because cooling units can't keep up. Yet anyway.

Zactly. They already have. I am postponing the mobile purchase until after I have the Dual Clovertown fully operational. Moreover, we can't even see beyond the mobile speed Apple just introduced Tuesday. Intel is giving us no numbers when it comes to beyond 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo. Sure the FSB will be "enhanced" to 800MHz with Santa Rosa. But that's hardly worth a sneeze compared to the 667GHz FSB it already has.

So I think you can forget about large multi-tasking on any mobile for the foreseeable future. Once my workflow shifted from linear to multi-threaded multi-tasking a little less than a year ago, I realized that dual core processors are really not much better than what we had for processing in 1985 - in this new paradigm of how to work a lot of stuff simultaneously.

When I ordered my Quad G5 in February, I was almost in a cold sweat panic. The sudden lack of power not coming out of my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 was frightening as soon as I had made that workflow shift. Scared me to death. I was visibly alarmed.

It was like a combination epiphany and natural disaster - fear and panic at the same time.

 

[Multimedia]

I'll Let You Know How It Goes

No one has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.

The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.

Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.

So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968

Happy Halloween!

I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"

No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.

 

[~Shard~]

I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.

Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya...

 

[Eidorian]

I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"

No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.

I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.

Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya...

It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.

 

[slinger1968]

I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.

I've seen this comment on numerous posts and it sounds like people haven't read Anand's review.

It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.

I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.

It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.

Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs

 

[slinger1968]

Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.

Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.

This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.

Exactly

I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.

On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.

 

[Eidorian]

Exactly

I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.

On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.

I don't think Cloverton will run on standard DDR2. Kentsfield sure but doesn't Xeon REQUIRE ECC/FB-DIMM?

 

[AppliedVisual]

Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.

Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.

Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.

 

[Multimedia]

Not Single Clovertown - Kentsfield On A Conroe Motherboard

Exactly

I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.

What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown. Different motherboard not Clovertown compatible. Clovertown is specifically designed to be run in tandum with another Clovertown. Kentsfield is specifically designed to run as one on a Conroe motherboard with the cheaper more popular DDR2 RAM.

On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.

Thanks for the props.

 

[~Shard~]

Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?