Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
With that information in mind, It seems like it's "plausable" that 2 threads ARE as good as 2 cores. If you have some data that says otherwise...
For certain operations yes, but the thing to note about a core is that it contains everything a processor thread needs; an ALU, vector units, etc. etc. A single core running multiple threads may not be able to allow both threads access to some resources simultaneously, for example if both threads try to do an add, they would both need access to the ALU.
Even accounting for these potential "clashes" though I suspect that there will be quite a good performance bump, I doubt it's anywhere near the theoretical double though!

Here's what the tech-specs say:
[quote="Apple.com]Next-generation Intel microarchitecture
8MB of fully shared L3 cache per processor
Integrated memory controller
Turbo Boost dynamic performance (up to 3.33GHz on 8-core 2.93GHz system)
Hyper-Threading technology for up to 16 virtual cores
128-bit SSE4 SIMD engine
64-bit data paths and registers
Optimized for energy efficiency[/quote]
I've highlighted one bit that interests me; it seems as though the processors can still achieve 3.2ghz or higher speeds, but possibly only for short bursts.
 
The 8-core is overly expensive, no doubt, but the quad model deserves a second look.

The quad has hyper-threading so it will show up as 8 in Activity Monitor. Also, in the upgrade page you can go 2.93 for not much more, which will run at 3.2 due to Turbo Boost.

A 3.2 hyperthreaded quad with 6GB and a 4870 could be a very nice box.
 
I find it slightly disturbing that you can spend $22,585.90 (excl. tax) on one single page on the Apple Store!
 
The 8-core is expensive, no doubt, but the quad model deserves a second look.

The quad has hyper-threading so it will show up as 8 in Activity Monitor. Also, in the upgrade page you can go 2.93 for not much more, which will run at 3.2 due to Turbo Boost.

A 3.2 hyperthreaded quad with 6GB and a 4870 could be a very nice box.

You know the quad core is basically your standard i7 PC with ECC support and double the price right?
 
UK prices are pretty crazy. Using the HE discount I can get a new 4-core model for £1595. Last year I bought my existing model for approx £1600 with a better graphics card (8800GT) and that was with 17.5% VAT as opposed to 15% VAT! An 'equivalent' 8-core machine would now set me back a cool £2100. I was thinking of upgrading, but not any more. At most I might buy the upgraded graphics card.

My bet is that these prices will be revised in a few months time after the price of the processors comes down somewhat. In any case I'm not buying at the moment.

Last year each of your British Pounds bought two dollars. Now each one buys $1.40. Prices will come down when the pound goes up to two dollars again. :mad:
 
The 8-core is overly expensive, no doubt, but the quad model deserves a second look.

The quad has hyper-threading so it will show up as 8 in Activity Monitor. Also, in the upgrade page you can go 2.93 for not much more, which will run at 3.2 due to Turbo Boost.

A 3.2 hyperthreaded quad with 6GB and a 4870 could be a very nice box.

But the question is actual real world performance - how fast does it run apps compared to the previous generation? I'll bet the quad is slower than the old 8 core overall.
 
one Mini Display port on the graphics card along with DVI which looks hella weird. also means that you cant use two LED Displays with a Mac Pro :rolleyes:.

gallery-big-03.jpg

...don't use apple displays?
:confused:
 
With faster processors to balance out lower clock speed, the new TurboBoost tech boosting effective clock speed further when cores aren't being used, and broader memory bandwidth to make up for less RAM, doesn't anyone here think that we should save the complaining until after MacWorld or somebody benchmarks these suckers?

Oh, wait. I forgot I was on the internet. Nevermind.
 
A special note pertaining to those who have been questioning the keyboard choices now....

Another HUGE WTF?!?!? goes out to Apple on this one.

If you didn't know better, people are going to be really upset when they crack open their boxes on these new Macs and find a wired version of the BT keyboard with no key pad.

Apple is now offering the wired numerical keyboard as an OPTION.

Why Apple???? Why did you give us a keyboard option that NO ONE ASKED FOR?!?!?!?!? Last time I checked most of us were requesting you make the extended numerical keyboard as a wireless option, NOT THE smaller key pad as a WIRED version.
 
I'm confused about all of this. Apple is saying only "Xeon" on their site with no mention of the "i7".

You guys are throwing model numbers around it's making my head spin. Let me get this straight, there's only one chip out there yes? The "i7"...except some chips have certain things turned on so they work in dual processor motherboards yes? While the "consumer" version is only for single processor motherboards....otherwise they are the same.

So we're dealing with only two processors here with the new iMacs and the Mac Pros? The iMacs have the Core 2 and the Mac Pros have the "i7" Xeons?
 
Well thats me certainly not buying a new Mac Pro, I sold my old one for these ones but I will not be paying this kind of money, it's just taking the piss.
 
I'm confused about all of this. Apple is saying only "Xeon" on their site with no mention of the "i7".

You guys are throwing model numbers around it's making my head spin. Let me get this straight, there's only one chip out there yes? The "i7"...except some chips have certain things turned on so they work in dual processor motherboards yes? While the "consumer" version is only for single processor motherboards....otherwise they are the same.

So we're dealing with only two processors here with the new iMacs and the Mac Pros? The iMacs have the Core 2 and the Mac Pros have the "i7" Xeons?

The Xeon 3500 and the i7 are the same chip.
 
With faster processors to balance out lower clock speed, the new TurboBoost tech boosting effective clock speed further when cores aren't being used, and broader memory bandwidth to make up for less RAM, doesn't anyone here think that we should save the complaining until after MacWorld or somebody benchmarks these suckers?
A lot of the complaining is due to 8 cores not available at the $2799 price point that they were before.
 
On a bright note, I'm really glad I bought the previous version MacPro a few months ago. I was worried that Apple was going to release a 16-core version this month and I'd be kicking myself. But finally buying older technology has paid off for me! :D
 
A special note pertaining to those who have been questioning the keyboard choices now....

Another HUGE WTF?!?!? goes out to Apple on this one.

If you didn't know better, people are going to be really upset when they crack open their boxes on these new Macs and find a wired version of the BT keyboard with no key pad.

Apple is now offering the wired numerical keyboard as an OPTION.

Why Apple???? Why did you give us a keyboard option that NO ONE ASKED FOR?!?!?!?!? Last time I checked most of us were requesting you make the extended numerical keyboard as a wireless option, NOT THE smaller key pad as a WIRED version.

So far in this thread I have agreed with EVERYTHING you have said.

What a bunch of idiots. This has really made me reconsider my future with apple.
 
With faster processors to balance out lower clock speed, the new TurboBoost tech boosting effective clock speed further when cores aren't being used, and broader memory bandwidth to make up for less RAM, doesn't anyone here think that we should save the complaining until after MacWorld or somebody benchmarks these suckers?

Oh, wait. I forgot I was on the internet. Nevermind.

Even if the performance is better the value has gone from good to appaling.
 
I'm confused - with the dual CPU/octo-core model, you can get up to 32GB RAM in 4 slots, and they have options for 12GB in 3 slots or 16GB in 4 slots.

Will the machine actually run faster with 12GB in tri-channel mode than it would with 16GB if I don't actually need 16GB and would not be swapping to disk with 12? Any advice much appreciated here.
 
I'm confused about the "integrated memory controller with three channels of 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC memory"

Is that why the base Mac Pro has two options for 3 Dimms (3x1GB and 3x2GB)? Wouldn't that degrade performance when four DIMMs are used?

Is 8GB (4x2GB) the same (as fast) on both Mac Pro models?

p.s. The Macbook Pros got a CPU bump too!
 
You know the quad core is basically your standard i7 PC with ECC support and double the price right?

Sure but prices in the PC world are neither here nor there unless you want to build a Hackintosh. If not, then the only comparisons that matter are Octo vs Quad vs iMac vs Mini, etc...
 
Benefits of using RAM in tri-channel mode?

I'm confused - with the dual CPU/octo-core model, you can get up to 32GB RAM in 4 slots, and they have options for 12GB in 3 slots or 16GB in 4 slots.

Will the machine actually run faster with 12GB in tri-channel mode than it would with 16GB if I don't actually need 16GB and would not be swapping to disk with 12? Any advice much appreciated here. Or do the Xeons support a quad-channel mode...? (Never heard of it but one can always hope! :) I quickly found this article and it looks like the difference is 1% or less going tri-channel, but curious what other info is out there...
 
I'm confused about the "integrated memory controller with three channels of 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC memory"

Is that why the base Mac Pro has two options for 3 Dimms (3x1GB and 3x2GB)? Wouldn't that degrade performance when four DIMMs are used?

Is 8GB (4x2GB) the same (as fast) on both Mac Pro models?

I believe you get tri-channel performance plus the extra DIMM. I'm sure there is info out there as Intel's X58 board has 4 DIMM slots.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.