Not likely as all four in one would have to share one FSB instead of two in two each having their own FSB. While the 8-core owners will have to live with this limitation, I doubt the 4-core buyers would want theirs running that way. That would make the older 4-core Mac Pros run faster than the new ones. Not progress.Maybe Apple will replace the 2.0 and 2.6 models with the 1 new quad-core Clovertown. They are probably less expensive for 1 than 2 Woodcrests. This would allow Apple to drop the entry level pricing and raise the bar so to speak.
Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499
Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)
What do you think?
What's your best price on that puppy? I've been wanting to do that for a while. But my 500GB boot drive is almost full all the time.
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor.![]()
Not likely as all four in one would have to share one FSB instead of two in two each having their own FSB. While the 8-core owners will have to live with this limitation, I doubt the 4-core buyers would want theirs running that way. That would make the older 4-core Mac Pros run faster than the new ones. Not progress.
We are now less than four weeks away from Black Friday. So it's all very exciting. I imagine Apple will be able to add this choice the same day Intel makes release official. So watching for Intel's release day is key. I believe I read some post that said it would be mid November. Anyone know exactly?
Thanks. So Tuesday the 14th or if not then, the 21st would be our likely days. 14th is probably more likely because all Apple has to do is take orders even if they haven't received any Clovertowns yet and the following week is Thanksgiving-Black Friday week which would mess with their publicity. So we're talking two weeks from Tuesday. Perfect. Can't wait to place my order the same day.Monday the 13th Intel announces Clovertown and Kentsfield are shipping.
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing.And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year.
I wish we could get more details then "it could be released after mid-November.." OF COURSE it will be released after mid-November, but what does that mean? End of November? December? January? I just want to know when it will be out!!
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows...)
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest. Each Clovertown is simply two Woodcrests combined into one pin compatible package.I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
Clovertowns are Xeons. They are Dual Woodcrests on one pin compatible package. They are not slower. They run 2.66GHz which is same as the stock MBP offering now. They will provide a total of 21.28GHz worth of power vs. 10.64GHz or 12GHz on the current 2.66GHz & 3GHz 4-core models. Do you know your workflow? Do you know what you use is multi-core aware or not? Do you know if you want to run multiple instances of multi-core aware applicatinos simultaneously? These are the kind of questions you need to ask yourself.I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
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?
i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest.
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
tid[i] = System.Thread.Create();
}
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Code:Thread_ID tid[4]; for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++) { tid[i] = System.Thread.Create(); }
Yep... Although, I'm not sure where your code example shows anything to do woth such logic bugs, all you're doing is creating an array of thread IDs equal to the number of CPUs in the system. ...Anyone who uses such a direct and bluntly stupid thread creation methodology should be struck square between the eyes with a tackhammer, though.![]()
It's also possible that a program might check the number of CPUs, and decide not to run if it sees more than 4 CPUs. This doesn't make much sense, but I've seen stranger things.
I've seen some pretty strange stuff too... I'm sure there's going to be the usual issues he had this last time around with dual-core CPUs. I'm sure there's enough apps out there that check to see if CPUs are <= 4 before they run or other such nonsense. With dual core CPUs we had a whole mess with FlexLM licensed applications that were limited with licenses based on CPU numbers and industry arguments over whether or not dual-core CPUs should be considered one or two CPUs.
Just a few more weeks until the fun begins.![]()
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUsFor example:
Code:Thread_ID tid[4]; for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++) { tid[i] = System.Thread.Create(); }
Yep... Although, I'm not sure where your code example shows anything to do woth such logic bugs, all you're doing is creating an array of thread IDs equal to the number of CPUs in the system.).
It then creates as many threads as the actual CPU count reported by the system.
On an octo - it will overrun the "tid" array and probably not work....
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs).
I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Code:Thread_ID tid[4]; for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++) { tid[i] = System.Thread.Create(); }
It's also possible that a program might check the number of CPUs, and decide not to run if it sees more than 4 CPUs. This doesn't make much sense, but I've seen stranger things.
Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to wait for someone else or me at a store to make sure Toast and Handbrake don't have those bugs.The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs).
It then creates as many threads as the actual CPU count reported by the system.
On an octo - it will overrun the "tid" array and probably not work....
Post 163Im definitely ready to upgrade to a new Mac Pro, top of the line..
The fact that the OctoMac could be released anytime between Black Friday and MWSF is really making me anxious..
I fear that they hold it till MW.. and I jump the gun and buy a Quad. I mean Im using a Powerbook 1.67.. and multi-tasking like crazy.. The upgrade is a must.. sometimes Im running Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator, Itunes, Azureus, After Effects all at the same time.. Obviously as soon as I render, coffee break!
The quad would still kick ass.. Octo would pave the road ahead.
Keeping my eyes peeled on any indication of the TBA Octo.![]()