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

8-Core Mac Pros have arrived.

fairnymph said:
Thanks for the response Umbongo.

So if you think multicore is the future, and I'm the type of person who buys a new computer every 5-8 years, should I go 8 core or no? If it's something that will be useful in the future, as in next 1-3 years, then it is definitely worth the extra cash to me now. But if it's something that is unlikely to ever, or in the near future ever, make a significant difference in performance, then obviously it's a waste of money.

I guess I'm also worried that we will soon switch to an altogether different form of computing (quantum or synaptic) within the near future.
Click to expand...

I think at the moment multiple cores benefit those who are trying to juggle multiple demanding tasks at the same time, obviously some applications can take advantage of 8 cores so look in to what you use. However I also think Apple may soon only offer 8 core Mac Pros in order to make 8 cores the mainstream and encourage OSX developers to take advantage of that with Pro Apps, for similar price points. So if you only buy very rarely, at least wait until the next generation of Mac Pros to see the direction Apple are taking.

I don't think we will be moving in to those other types of computing for home users, or business for a long while yet.
 
It's not just the memory bus. Remember, FB-DIMMs have relatively high latency by nature. While the ECC memory introduces some reliability and stability in the form of the error correction code, a performance hit is realized.

Unless one is using their Mac Pro as a 24x7 server platform, there is no need for expensive and inefficient FB-DIMMS in that machine.
 
Wild-Bill said:
It's not just the memory bus. Remember, FB-DIMMs have relatively high latency by nature. While the ECC memory introduces some reliability and stability in the form of the error correction code, a performance hit is realized.

Unless one is using their Mac Pro as a 24x7 server platform, there is no need for expensive and inefficient FB-DIMMS in that machine.
Click to expand...


So you think with different ram the tests could show a different outcome for the 8-core Mac Pro?
 
Wild-Bill said:
It's not just the memory bus. Remember, FB-DIMMs have relatively high latency by nature. While the ECC memory introduces some reliability and stability in the form of the error correction code, a performance hit is realized.

Unless one is using their Mac Pro as a 24x7 server platform, there is no need for expensive and inefficient FB-DIMMS in that machine.
Click to expand...

Sadly there is no other option, nor will there likely be.
 
Does anyone have any idea how Windows x64 will handle the 8 cores?

Obviously it will suffer from the same bottlenecks but does the OS handle the cores more intelligently than OSX 10.4?
 
EricTheRed71 said:
Does anyone have any idea how Windows x64 will handle the 8 cores?

Obviously it will suffer from the same bottlenecks but does the OS handle the cores more intelligently than OSX 10.4?
Click to expand...

http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/app.htm

Remember that the Intel chipset has dual 1333 MHz front side busses, and two banks of 1333 MHz memory. Couple that with a total of 16 MiB of L2 cache (4MiB per pair of CPUs in the dual-dual-dual config), and the "memory bottleneck" is a pretty wide-mouth bottle!

Also note http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/rfp2006.html - SPECfp is a pretty memory-intensive benchmark. At the top of the chart is an Acer 720, tested with one socket and two sockets. (under Suse x64, not Windows)

The score was 33.9 with 4 cores, and 57.2 with 8 cores. That's pretty good scaling - and indicates that the memory system does a pretty good job of feeding 8 cores.
 
EricTheRed71 said:
Does anyone have any idea how Windows x64 will handle the 8 cores?

Obviously it will suffer from the same bottlenecks but does the OS handle the cores more intelligently than OSX 10.4?
Click to expand...

Yes, it uses the Windows Server 2003 kernel. I don't think it has the enhancements that are in Vista to support AMD NUMA. (AMD chips tie different memory chips to different CPUs. If the OS doesn't take that in to account, speed is brought down, similar to what is happening with OS 10.4)
 
AidenShaw said:
Remember that the Intel chipset has dual 1333 MHz front side busses, and two banks of 1333 MHz memory. Couple that with a total of 16 MiB of L2 cache (4MiB per pair of CPUs in the dual-dual-dual config), and the "memory bottleneck" is a pretty wide-mouth bottle!
Click to expand...

Sure, remember that all you want. But don't forget that the cache is USELESS if the OS keeps swapping threads around all the cores, and all the load falls to the memory bus.
 
Amdahl said:
Sure, remember that all you want. But don't forget that the cache is USELESS if the OS keeps swapping threads around all the cores, and all the load falls to the memory bus.
Click to expand...

The next OS update should fix this, shouldn't it? :confused: :confused:
 
Amdahl said:
Sure, remember that all you want. But don't forget that the cache is USELESS if the OS keeps swapping threads around all the cores, and all the load falls to the memory bus.
Click to expand...
That's a much smaller problem than the fundamental flaw in Intel's multicore design--8 cores are always going to be starved for data worse than AMD processors until Intel rips off HyperTransport-like technology. Even two or four cores show this problem pretty well.

Up until this point, the superior overall performance of the Core architecture has made up for the fact that FSB bandwidth simply can't compare with HyperTransport. However, we're obviously seeing the limits of an FSB-based approach with these benchmarks. At some point, you have to realize that a two-lane highway has implicit limits not found on wider pathways.

That said, AMD's HyperTransport can't currently deliver to four cores effectively, which is why we are seeing a delay in AMD's quad cores. It could retake the server crown if some improvements are made to the Athlon--but when Intel loses the FSB and shared-bandwidth core design, things will really take off.

A new chipset (SS) is not going to solve that problem on its own. These CPUs in any chipset are going to be nearly impossible to saturate--there are just too many cores competing for data.
 
matticus008: Agreed. AMD has the better design for higher core count.

Redneck: 10.5 ought to fix it. It would be a disaster for Apple if they don't. Right now, people are excited about quad-core Mac, and 8-core Mac. They won't be too happy if bad benchmarks keep coming out and no fix in sight.
 
Amdahl said:
matticus008: Agreed. AMD has the better design for higher core count.

Redneck: 10.5 ought to fix it. It would be a disaster for Apple if they don't. Right now, people are excited about quad-core Mac, and 8-core Mac. They won't be too happy if bad benchmarks keep coming out and no fix in sight.
Click to expand...

I say that leopard should have been released with the 8core processing.
 
princealfie said:
I say that leopard should have been released with the 8core processing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that was Apple's plan. But Leopard wasn't ready. Wall Street wouldn't have liked the big drop in revenue in 2Q if the 8-core hadn't shipped.
 
Quad G5

The Quad G5 still looks like one of the best boxes still to date.

If I am not mistaken, and I could be, the PowerMac Quad had less of a problem with core swapping???

Regardless, I am glad I did not sell our Quad G5's.

Holding out.
 
Leopard Delayed 'Til October Bodes Badly For This 8 Core Mac Pro

dante@sisna.com said:
The Quad G5 still looks like one of the best boxes still to date.

If I am not mistaken, and I could be, the PowerMac Quad had less of a problem with core swapping???

Regardless, I am glad I did not sell our Quad G5's.

Holding out.
Click to expand...
Apple delays Leopard release until October

Without a brain, this 8 Core is really on the yellow brick road to Oz. Leopard's Wizzard won't be around to help it and without a significant 8 Core update for Tiger, the niche market for the 8 core Mac Pro is ultra slim. :( All the more reason for a much longer wait than any of us anticipated. Almost makes me want to grab a 2.66 Quad refurb just for fun - almost. :( ;)
 
Multimedia said:
Apple delays Leopard release until October

Without a brain, this 8 Core is really on the yellow brick road to Oz. Leopard's Wizzard won't be around to help it and without a significant 8 Core update for Tiger, the niche market for the 8 core Mac Pro is ultra slim. :( All the more reason for a much longer wait than any of us anticipated. Almost makes me want to grab a 2.66 Quad refurb just for fun - almost. :( ;)
Click to expand...

What the F*** Apple?! You have got to be kidding me! I'm really starting to lose faith in good ol' Steve. I am a recent convert, in NEED of a powerful workstation, and I have half a mind to switch back! Why can't they just be up front with what is going on?
 
BiikeMike said:
What the F*** Apple?! You have got to be kidding me! I'm really starting to lose faith in good ol' Steve. I am a recent convert, in NEED of a powerful workstation, and I have half a mind to switch back! Why can't they just be up front with what is going on?
Click to expand...

Get ready for your bashing for that comment. Although, I understand where you are coming from. I am sick to death of Apple promoting the iPod and iPhone while basically ignoring their computer market. Ever since the iPod really took off their computers have really seemed to be placed on the back burner.

I was pretty close to purchasing an 8-core Mac Pro with the belief/hope that OS 10.5 would speed it up sufficiently over the quad Mac Pros to justify the extract cost of the machine, but now by the time Leopard comes out these 8-Core computers will be old and an update will be near, give or take a month or two. I just don't understand Apple. Surely Apple must be aware that this 8-Core Mac Pro will seem like a joke when it barely outperforms its quad-core counterparts in all the benchmark tests... People just won't buy it.
 
Oh man! What now?

I have been waiting forever for a new Mac Pro. i was hoping the hardware and software would all come together in June.

Now no Leopard til who really knows when.

8 Core Mac Pro looks like a lamb in sheeps clothing.

Will anything be revealed this weekend at NAB other than FCP?

Will June bring Mac Pro Octo with SS and better GPU with Leopard upgrade waiting in the wings?

Or will we see no new Mac Pro until after Leopard is released?

After this weekend, I may just cave in and buy a Quad now. Maybe it is the best option for the money.

CRAP! I know I'm going to get bit by buying at the wrong time. But I can't really wait any longer.
 
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