Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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?
 
I Believe Single Clovertowns Would Have All Four Cores Sharing One FSB - Not Good

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?
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?
 
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. :p

Right now newegg.com has them at $229.99 with a $30.00 rebate. Must be purchased by October 31, 2006. That makes it $199.99. I've paid more for less in my life time.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136011

On my current G5, my boot drive is a striped raid with the following:

2 - SEAGATE ST336607LW 10,000 RPM drives, for speeds up to 320MB/s
1 - ATTO,ExpressPCIProUL4D
http://www.attotech.com/ultra4s.html
1 - Granite Digital SCSIVue Custom RAID Case #3300 w/ Granite Digital SCSI VueTeflon Gold Diagnostic Ultra Cable #6960
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg03_cases.htm
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg09_xtcables.htm


The raid gives me 68.1 GB of storage. I boot from this drive and have all of my applications on it. Storage for all music, videos, & pictures are kept on 2 - Maxtor 7Y250M0 250 GB drives that are internal.

I have been spoiled with this setup but unfortunately, when I move to the Mac Pro I won't be able to use the SCSI setup.

If anyone wants to buy this setup let me know.
 
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?

Monday the 13th.
 
So Tuesday November 14 Is Our Likely Announcement First Day Of Sales Day

Monday the 13th Intel announces Clovertown and Kentsfield are shipping.
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. :)
 
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.

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.
 
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 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... :eek:)
 
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... :eek:)

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?
 
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
 
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?

We can't answer that question without knowing what you want to do with the system... it fully depends on the work loads you plan to throw at it. In some cases fewer faster cores makes sense in others more, even if slower (lower clocked), cores makes sense.
 
November 14 Release & Shipping Immediately

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?
No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest. Each Clovertown is simply two Woodcrests combined into one pin compatible package.

Apple should take orders beginning Tuesday November 14, the day after Intel has their "Shipping" Press Event. There will not be a big delay from then and when they ship because Intel is delivering them in quantity to manufacturers right away in November and the number of orders will be small compared to C2D products as well as Woodcrest products.

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Apple as always being slow to ship new products. My impression of the C2D iMac release Wednesday September 6, 2006 is that it was both early and rapidly deployed. I don't think many of us saw it coming and they were immediately for sale in quantity in all the Apple Stores as well as online shipping immediately.
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
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.

The Dual Clovertown Mac Pro is going to cost you over $4,000 once you put a decent amount of RAM in it. So are you ready for that much expense to save huge chunks of time? This is a Time-Is-Money product. If you don't see how you're going to save time with such a Mac then you may as well pass on it.

I'm sitting here writing you on my Quad G5 while I watch the paint dry on my two Toast video compression series I'm currently running so I can run a Handbrake compression series and another Toast compression series after they finish.

I have never needed so much more power in my lives with Macs since the early years '84-'93 as I do now. I think there are several others here who also are in the same boat. If you're here out of curiosity and not need, then you haven't yet realized how much you can do simultaneously on a Mac once you develop a Multi-Threaded Workload process that begs for more power all the time.

i would say that this upcoming 8-core Mac Pro is the first Mac that might be able to keep ahead of me. But in a few months I will probably be yearning for a 16-core Mac Pro as soon as Intel & Apple can put it together with independent busses for each core or at least more busses per core than one for four. Like maybe at least two for four ASAP.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...
 
... unless there are bugs or silly programming ...

No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest.
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.
 
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. :D
 
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.
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).

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....
 
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.

Ouch! You do make an Outstanding Case for that 8 Core MacPro. For Sure. Okay, so maybe I would be tempted to sell my Quad G5. Scary. . ..
 
Guess I'll Have To Precheck For Those Synchronization, Logic Or Core Count Bugs

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.
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).

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....
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. :eek:

Wonder what the chances are an 8-core Mac Pro will be on display at the Apple Stores?
 
How many Cores does it take to screw in a lightbulb..?

Im 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. :cool:

L
 
Tuesday November 14 NOT After Black Friday - 10 Days Before

Im 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. :cool:
Post 163

Running a bunch of apps simultaneously and switching around is not a multi-threaded workload but is multi-tasking. The Multi-Threaded Workload is like when you start rendering in one, then switch to another and start rendering there, then switch to another and start crushing video, then switch to another and start crushing another video with the second application of two needed to get it down to high quality mp4 like for example how I use Toast followed by Handbrake to first create high quality DVD Images then crush those further to high quality mp4 with Handbrake's 2-pass FFmpeg encoder. Toast can use up to all 4 Quad Mac Pro cores and Handbrake can use almost 3. I hope to God they still function properly on the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.

This would not resemble the workflow you exercise with a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4. You would be doing things in quite a different way with 8-cores at your disposal. But it does depend on how much you want to use multi-threaded applications simultaneously and as warned above, that what you use will not fold in the face of reports to them that there are more than 4 cores on board due to software authoring mistakes.
 
Multi-Threaded Workflow / Multi-tasking (8-Core)

If I was running upcomming Leopard OSX, a few osx apps, the full upcoming CS3 Suite (not necessarily Batch Processing), have After Effects rendering a 30 minute clip in the background, downloading *legal torrents, watching internet tv (muted), while burning a DVD and listening to music..

That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet

Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..

thx in advance,
L
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.