Intel's Tulsa Server Processor, and IBM Power 6

[MacRumors]

The International Solid State Circuits Conference takes places this week, and reveals Intel's plans for a dual-core Xeon server processor due in the "second half of the year".

The upcoming chip is called "Tulsa" and has an emphasis on performance. The dual-core chip is expected to come in at 3.4GHz with a 16MB unified cache. The performance is expected to boosted by up to 10% with this change. Also featured in the chip is Intel's virtualization technology allowing the chip to run multiple operating systems as well as energy conservation technology.

Apple announced at MacWorld San Francisco that they would be transitioning their entire line over to the Intel processor in 2006, suggesting that the Tulsa processor could find its way into future Xserves.

Meanwhile, IBM continues work on their Power6 processor also designed for servers. We had previously been interested in the Power6 as a basis for future PowerPC chips.

 

[Craigy]

Be great in the new MacPros!

 

[combatcolin]

16MB cache.

 

[Little Endian]

Tulsa sounds very nice but what does this mean for Xserve? Is Apple going to leave it untouched till late this year? I am still wondering why Apple has not upgraded the Xserve with Dual Core G5. Heat is an issue but two 970MPs at 2Ghz should run at a reasonable temp inside Xserve. Intel really does not have anything fitting that could replace the 970FX or a 970MP at the moment.

 

[jacobj]

16MB cache.

One day you'll laugh at the fact that you find this amazing

 

[Platform]

16MB Cache...Dual Core @ 3.4Ghz.....nah that would be too many barries for Apple to brake

Mac Pro and Xserves

 

[manu chao]

Isn't this still based on Netburst? And when are the Conroe-based processors coming?

 

[TangoCharlie]

Power Requirements

These Xeon's (Tulsa) are aimed at the high-performance high-power usage
end of the market. At 150W power usage <http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29540> I can't see these in Apple's 1U XServe style enclosures.

I think the XServe will get the Sossaman LV Zeon (Lendenhurst platform).

The "PowerMac G5" replacement might get Depsey and/or Woodcrest (Dual-Code) DP Xeons.

Tulsa will only get into Apple's line-up if they try another "big" server (like the old Apple Network Servers), or at the very least a 3U rack-mounted server. It's extremely unlikely IMHO. I don't see Apple trying to compete with HP and Dell for the 3U-5U server market.

 

[Stella]

Isn't this still based on Netburst? And when are the Conroe-based processors coming?

Conroe will arrive by third quarter, I think?

IBM processors are now academic, Apple aren't going to use them.

 

[Hattig]

Tulsa won't be used in a Mac.

It's one of the final designs from the Netburst era, it's a slightly more muscley P4. 150W TDP (and Intel's TDP is 75% max TDP, which AMD use, making the 95W AMD figure even better in comparison).

I'm wary of the AMD details in the article as well - AMD's dual core Opterons already have 1MB L2 per core, so why would they move back to 512KB? Maybe AMD are adding a unified L3 cache, or they are going to release a quad-core processor with reduced cache at 90nm for applications where cache isn't so useful (streaming data tasks, etc).

 

[Mord]

these are netburst, therefor suck ass apple will not use them.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Off topic but the Apple online store is down. Maybe we will see some more Intel stuff. Today is Tuesday!

 

[Mord]

powerbook G6!

 

[DHUK]

Off topic but the Apple online store is down. Maybe we will see some more Intel stuff. Today is Tuesday!

MacBook Pro could have started to ship?

 

[ezekielrage_99]

One of those new Xeons in a Mac Pro would be sweet

In the words of Homer "Strap yourself in and feel the Gs"..... or should that be intels

 

[Mord]

or the 12/17" mbp's are ready to announce.

 

[excalibur313]

Off topic but the Apple online store is down. Maybe we will see some more Intel stuff. Today is Tuesday!

Ooop it's already fixed. Drat!

 

[bodeh6]

Off topic but the Apple online store is down. Maybe we will see some more Intel stuff. Today is Tuesday!

We did get new stuff. 1GB Nano $149

 

[nagromme]

Once upon a time I planned to wait for a Power6-derived chip in my next Mac.

It's looking like Conroe will be my post-G5 choice now...

 

[Thanatoast]

How in the world am I supposed to keep all these chips straight? I mean, there's like 47 different chips that Intel produced/is producing/will produce. What are the advantages of one versus the other? Are the ones we're getting the good ones, the okay ones, or the crap ones? How would I know the difference? Does the hardware matter more or what I'm using the computer for? Jeezus.

I liked the days of G5>G4, and faster G*>slower G*.

 

[nataku]

Conroe will probably be used in PowerMacs. I just keep wondering why Apple used the Core-Duo chips on iMacs. I guess they really wanted to speed things up. Core-Duo on Macbooks seem logical since they are really notebook processors (low-power, high-ish-performance). Am i right?


though off-topic... anybody got news on Intel's Viiv thingy? I wonder if Apple is going to use this. (I strongly hope so! macmini digital entertainment hub. hey i can dream right? )

 

[Peace]

Conroe will probably be used in PowerMacs. I just keep wondering why Apple used the Core-Duo chips on iMacs. I guess they really wanted to speed things up. Core-Duo on Macbooks seem logical since they are really notebook processors (low-power, high-ish-performance). Am i right?


though off-topic... anybody got news on Intel's Viiv thingy? I wonder if Apple is going to use this. (I strongly hope so! macmini digital entertainment hub. hey i can dream right? )

Intel's ViiV is a WindowsCentric marketing scheme.One Apple will never use.At least the term "ViiV".

Now the IBM Power 6..That's a different story.

 

[iMeowbot]

The Xeon models are relevant. Remember Xserve.

 

[stockscalper]

The G6 uses far far less power than Intel's current line up. Apple what were you thinking?

 

[iMeowbot]

The G6 uses far far less power than Intel's current line up. Apple what were you thinking?

IBM have made no such claim. They have only claimed that their future POWER6 processors should have better power density than some of today's desktop CPUs. Future desktop CPUs will also have better power characteristics than today's models, so the IBM statement is meaningless -- especially given that IBM haven't offered any actual numbers.

Also, there is no G6. The G5 is based on the POWER4. IBM never bothered to PowerPCify the POWER5 architecture, let alone the still-vaporware POWER6.