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

8 Core MacPros?

M

menziep

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
There were rumors about a macpro with 4 cpus (Dual core) was there anymore rumors on that?

If apple brings out a macpro with 8 Core (4 Dual Core CPU'S) or in 2007 a 16 Core (4 Quad Core CPU'S) that would be cool as apple would of Answered part of my dream, The other part of it is being able to Afford it!!!🙂
 
menziep said:
There were rumors about a macpro with 4 cpus (Dual core) was there anymore rumors on that?

If apple brings out a macpro with 8 Core (4 Dual Core CPU'S) or in 2007 a 16 Core (4 Quad Core CPU'S) that would be cool as apple would of Answered part of my dream, The other part of it is being able to Afford it!!!🙂
Click to expand...

Well, considering there's a PowerMac with 4 processor cores there will most likely be a Mac pro with 4 processor cores - the only way to make a 4-core Mac Pro is to use Intel's new Xeon chip codenamed "Woodcrest." Other "lesser" Mac Pros could use Core 2 Duo "Conroe" chips.
 
to have an octomac one would need the MP version of woodcrest that can be used in a 4 socket system, this cpu is not available yet and costs a silly amount of money.
 
There is rumor about Intel making a quad-core CPU in the future, so all it would take is for that to be able to handle a 2-CPU multiprocessor setup and you've got your octo-core.

I'd really love to see this as well, but fear it'd be insanely expensive and I'd never be able to afford it. I just hope they immediately produce a quad-core Mac Pro so when I get around to buying one (might try to wait until after Macworld in January) I won't have to wait for them to come out.
 
Hmm..It sounds cool, but what is the point? It would be only more expensive,and it is highly unlikely to run faster than a quad machine. Data throughput on the busses is the same, and very few programs are multithreaded to even utilize a quad core machine (hence the G5 2.7 will outperform the Quad 2.5 in some tests)

Yes, you can do "more things at once" but how many people are doing several CPU intensive tasks at once?
 
RichP said:
Hmm..It sounds cool, but what is the point? It would be only more expensive,and it is highly unlikely to run faster than a quad machine. Data throughput on the busses is the same, and very few programs are multithreaded to even utilize a quad core machine (hence the G5 2.7 will outperform the Quad 2.5 in some tests)

Yes, you can do "more things at once" but how many people are doing several CPU intensive tasks at once?
Click to expand...

I thought the whole point in the BSD kernel was that it makes any piece of software talk to dual core processors. I'm no expert on this, but that's what I was told...
 
Killyp said:
I thought the whole point in the BSD kernel was that it makes any piece of software talk to dual core processors. I'm no expert on this, but that's what I was told...
Click to expand...

I am no expert either, but the operating system (including the kernel) can run different tasks on the different cores/CPUs. To make use of more than one core in a single application, the application has to be explicitly designed to do that. The libraries in the OS provide some frameworks to make that easier for the programers, but they still have to develop their applications to make use of multiple cores/CPUs.
 
I think that would just be overkill (kinda like a Powermac G5 with 16 GB of RAM). It would be EXPENSIVE and pretty hard to use all that processing power.
 
steamboat26 said:
I think that would just be overkill (kinda like a Powermac G5 with 16 GB of RAM). It would be EXPENSIVE and pretty hard to use all that processing power.
Click to expand...



What? are you telling me you dont watch 16 divx encoded movies at a time?! 😉
 
steamboat26 said:
I think that would just be overkill (kinda like a Powermac G5 with 16 GB of RAM). It would be EXPENSIVE and pretty hard to use all that processing power.
Click to expand...

There are better, productive, and logical ways to easily use up all that processing power and still need more. Just because you don't need it using Safari doesn't mean scientists don't need it. The Power Mac and it's future replacement are "pro" machines for a reason - and you are probably not one of them.
 
When are the quadcore laptops coming out haha? One more thing.......

Yea, my dream will come true probably around 2009-2010
 
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