What is their to update exactly? The Mac Pros are already using the latest / fastest workstation processors and chipsets from Intel.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel's Penryn Xeon Processors Due in November
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What is their to update exactly? The Mac Pros are already using the latest / fastest workstation processors and chipsets from Intel.
I think intel would release 3.33ghz yorkfield quad-core(XE for desktop) this year. Sadly apple wont be using it.
Yorkfield Non-XE, wolfdale(desktop),wolfdale-dp(servers) along with penryn mobile Q1 next year.
There wont be too much clockspeed increase unless AMD pulls a 3ghz Agena or barcelona and that kicks harpertown/yorkfield's a**.
Even mobile we would be seeing T7800 (2.6ghz non-xe) and x7900(already in iMac?) in 65nm. 45 nm would see same clockspeeds with more cache. Hopefully they would reduce the TDP. I am sure intel can release a 3ghz mobile with 45nm.
Lets keep fingers crossed that K10 from AMD is really good. Then Intel would release faster penryns or even pull forward release of Nehalem.
Yorkfield Non-XE, wolfdale(desktop),wolfdale-dp(servers) along with penryn mobile Q1 next year.
There wont be too much clockspeed increase unless AMD pulls a 3ghz Agena or barcelona and that kicks harpertown/yorkfield's a**.
Even mobile we would be seeing T7800 (2.6ghz non-xe) and x7900(already in iMac?) in 65nm. 45 nm would see same clockspeeds with more cache. Hopefully they would reduce the TDP. I am sure intel can release a 3ghz mobile with 45nm.
Lets keep fingers crossed that K10 from AMD is really good. Then Intel would release faster penryns or even pull forward release of Nehalem.
No Predictions. Just Guessing Before Year End 2.6GHz 17" MBP Option.
No clue. But since overclocked 2.6 to 2.8 is already an option on iMacs that is scheduled for deliver a month from now i don't see why it can't be added before the end of year. But I'm just a hope and a prayer not predicting when.
Wrong. Intel dropped the price on Quad-core Clovertowns, they are now about the same price as Dual-core Woodcrests. So no. Apple does not use the faster processors from Intel.
Also, the graphics cards are very outdated. The HD and RAM spec could be bumped as they have both fallen in price.
Penryn is a class of chips. Xeons will use FB-DIMMs. The rest will not, and will possibly move to DRR3.
Didn't the prices for Clovertown drop just recently? I'd like to see the appropriate Clovertowns across the board at the current price points.
Also, if Color requires the ATI x1900, it should be the base card, methinks. I'd also like to see a standard 2 gigs of RAM like the MBP.
I'm not sure why these updates didn't come in along with the sorta quite Mini updates.
My mac pro is using two quad-core 3.0 ghz Xeons right now. I don't see a possible update except the GPU, or Blu-ray combo drives.
Yes. But the 2.66Ghz Clovertown is at the same price as the 2.66Ghz Woodcrest. You have the two quad cores, but there is not reason they couldn't stick a 2.66Ghz Clovertown at the base model.
For those asking about MBP/iMac:
From what I've read, new iMac 24" BTO processor is an x7800 2.6Ghz overclocked to 2.8, not an x7900. (Ah, I see Multimedia beat me to that!)
Anyway, I know other people have already brought this up, but I wanted to confirm:
Judging by what I've read, the Santa Rosa refresh - that is, basically, the introduction of mobile Penryns - is definitely slated for Q1 '08. I'm betting we'll get a MBP refresh sometime around then... unless Apple decides to wait until summer for Montevina, which pairs Penryn chips with an updated chipset (see end of this article for more details). But I don't really think they'd do that.
As for iMacs, they could either go the same way, or (as I somewhat forlornly hope) with the cooler 45nm chips Apple could finally start using desktop-class processors in its consumer desktop again. Wolfdale's TDP is only supposed to be ~60W... But no. I don't really expect it. However, I have read comments from Intel saying they will offer quad-core mobile Penryns. Wouldn't mind one of those.
A thorough description of Penryn and its benefits here.
From what I've read, new iMac 24" BTO processor is an x7800 2.6Ghz overclocked to 2.8, not an x7900. (Ah, I see Multimedia beat me to that!)
Anyway, I know other people have already brought this up, but I wanted to confirm:
Judging by what I've read, the Santa Rosa refresh - that is, basically, the introduction of mobile Penryns - is definitely slated for Q1 '08. I'm betting we'll get a MBP refresh sometime around then... unless Apple decides to wait until summer for Montevina, which pairs Penryn chips with an updated chipset (see end of this article for more details). But I don't really think they'd do that.
As for iMacs, they could either go the same way, or (as I somewhat forlornly hope) with the cooler 45nm chips Apple could finally start using desktop-class processors in its consumer desktop again. Wolfdale's TDP is only supposed to be ~60W... But no. I don't really expect it. However, I have read comments from Intel saying they will offer quad-core mobile Penryns. Wouldn't mind one of those.
A thorough description of Penryn and its benefits here.
Do we have a source for that? That seems very unlikely. As overclocking can be considered "stealing." I am sure Intel would have a problem with Apple buying 2.6Ghz chips to save cash and then overclocking to 2.8Ghz.
Since Intel Doesn't Sell 2.8GHz Meroms, Apple MUST be Overclocking With Permission
It's a logical deduction since Intel doesn't sell 2.8GHz Meroms while Apple offers them for $250 on new iMacs if you're willing to wait a month for delivery. So my GUESS is that intel is certifying some of their 2.6 Meroms as overclockable to 2.8 and selling those units to Apple as such. Meanwhile, the 17" MBP awaits the plain old 2.6GHz model as an option this Fall (I Hope).
Interesting deduction. Intel didn't sell 3.0Ghz Clovertowns until recently and even then that was 5 months after Apple was using them....
That could be the case though. Has anyone taken a look at the processor in the 24" to verify?
those aren't revisions, intel is just introducing another merom chip (exactly the same as the others) that is clocked at 2.6ghz... along with a new Celeron!!
nothing is changing with the mobile chips until next winter/spring
7 processors doing nothing? I think you need to educate yourself. Mac OS X's scheduler will properly divide the CPU time on all 8 cores for all processes and threads that are running. For example, right now on my dual core iMac at work I have 296 threads, and 92 processes. Both cores are being used. Same is true if I were using a 8 core Mac Pro, all of the 8 cores will be occupied with any of the 296 threads or 92 processes. Understand?
8 core is very beneficial, even with Tiger. Leopard is apparently improving the scheduler to make it more aware of the fact that the systems are running multicore (i.e >1 core per CPU).
Well, I read it a few different places (AppleInsider for example), but like Multimedia said it also seemed self-evident. Now that I look into it further, though, I suppose they could possibly sport x7900's before their official release. Indeed, it'd be interesting to find out for sure.
Though it doesn't really matter, at least in a Mac -- 2.8 Ghz is 2.8 Ghz!
a core is a CPU is a processor - a socket is unique
The words "core" and "socket" are unambiguous, they refer to physical entities.
The words "CPU" and "processor", however, mean different things at different times in different contexts.
A "core" fits the description of "CPU" and "processor" that have been used for decades. To the software, there's almost no difference between two cores in two dies in two packages in two sockets, and two cores on one die in one package in one socket. Both require SMP-capable (where "SMP" is "Simultaneous Multi-PROCESSing) operating systems. Both can run two threads at the same time.
Some licensing schemes, however, call the first "two processors" and the second "one processor". A non-technical distinction for purely marketing reasons.
In your reply you even use "core" and "processor" interchangeably....
I think that the original post was referring to the fact that very few *applications* run 8 times faster with an 8 CPU system.
This is due to both older programming that didn't think to exploit parallelism, and the unfortunate fact that many applications have data or temporal dependencies that make it impossible to split a problem into multiple pieces that can be done in parallel.
Running a task for 1/8 of a second on one core, then 1/8 of a second on the next, ... is not "useful". Running the task in 1/8th the time by running on all cores at once is useful. Unfortunately, few programs do the latter today.
The words "core" and "socket" are unambiguous, they refer to physical entities.
The words "CPU" and "processor", however, mean different things at different times in different contexts.
A "core" fits the description of "CPU" and "processor" that have been used for decades. To the software, there's almost no difference between two cores in two dies in two packages in two sockets, and two cores on one die in one package in one socket. Both require SMP-capable (where "SMP" is "Simultaneous Multi-PROCESSing) operating systems. Both can run two threads at the same time.
Some licensing schemes, however, call the first "two processors" and the second "one processor". A non-technical distinction for purely marketing reasons.
In your reply you even use "core" and "processor" interchangeably....
I think that the original post was referring to the fact that very few *applications* run 8 times faster with an 8 CPU system.
This is due to both older programming that didn't think to exploit parallelism, and the unfortunate fact that many applications have data or temporal dependencies that make it impossible to split a problem into multiple pieces that can be done in parallel.
Running a task for 1/8 of a second on one core, then 1/8 of a second on the next, ... is not "useful". Running the task in 1/8th the time by running on all cores at once is useful. Unfortunately, few programs do the latter today.
True.
And in the real-world you can run multiple instances of the same app at the same time. The app may not be written well to take advantage of multiple cores, but OS X certainly is and has been for decades. For example, run 4 instances of HandBrake and encode 4 movies into H.264. You'll see those 4 cores fly regardless of how the app was written.
That's because he originally used `processor`. But you're correct, CPU and processor could mean different things. I tend to say CPU/Processor as the socket itself. But again, you're correct.
That's true to an extent. However, there are some programming problems that simply cannot be divided into separate threads. For example, some operations require to be in linear order. That's the first thing a programmer must determine. Can we break this up? If so, how? If not, how do we allow the user to add more tasks, if that's possible?
Your programs are never going to execute in exactly one timeslice on a processing unit. So you have no say on that. It's the operating system's decision. My point was who cares if not every app is highly threaded? Is it really important for iCal to have a zillion threads? Most professional-level software are already taking advantage of as many cores as they can.
*shrug* I'm still right that the 7 "processors" aren't left unused.
