Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rant number... I've lost count!

So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.

BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?

I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.

When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.

So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
 
Erasmus said:
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.

BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?

I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.

When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.

So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.

I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
 
mwswami said:
Got it. Thanks!

If you haven't seen it before, I found this very interesting.


Cool! LOL! :)

Anyway, wondering if Apple will cut the prices the way the PC market dictates?? Anyone have any ideas? Apple is going to have to get used to ramping and changing the cores all the time, this is NOT IBM PPC, and Intel, AMD etc, release revesions of chips all the time, several times a year. In addition, one of the cool things about this is that the new desktops should allow you to buy the low end system and purchase a CPU and plop it in yourself, saving a bundle, unless of course they, being apple, stay withing market price of CPU's.

A good place to check current prices is..

www.pricewatch.com

Now if they where to solder them on, then I would fume and support the OSX86.org:D But seriously, from what I thought I read not to long ago, Apple is no longer "whoring" their RAM prices and are starting to reflect the "real" street prices of DDR.

IMHO, Apple is going to have to stay competitive with real street prices on their systems (CPU, Motherboard, RAM pricing) and the newer 2 Duo and Memron, Quads, etc are much lower than what IBM was charging them.

For the laptop segment, by the Holiday's, the MacBooks should be equal to the QUAD G5 in power, with the MBP 8 cores (2x4), and desktops in all various ranges.....especially with UB programs, all the way up to 4x4.

Now, if we could only get decent mic preamps, and everything wireless, guitar, etc, everything would be perfect.

Am still awaiting the device you place on your head and think about a song, idea, cartoon, and poof, it's done! LOL!!!
 
Macnoviz said:
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.

:D You never know, you never know.
Ye of little faith in technology!
Never mind.

I think its more along the lines of whether the public will let it happen without turning it into a big moral/ethical/religeous dilemma.
Well, anyway, I am going to stop, because this is way, way, way off topic. I shouldn't have brought it up to begin with.
 
THX1139 said:
I'm just curious about your post. Why would anyone in their right mind maintain a website for a product/company that no longer exists? Seems like a big waste of time and resources. I can see doing something similar for archival purposes, but that link leads to a complete website that has the appearance that it is still active.
I can think of several reasons. To sell service and support to users that have no other source, and has a hobby are the biggest two that come to mind.

You might be surprised to learn that there are still a lot of Amiga-enthusiast web sites, and even one where the owners are making new hardware for Apple-II series computers. (And there appears to be a surprisingly strong demand for Apple II Ethernet cards!)
 
Erasmus said:
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.

It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Erasmus said:
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.

There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.

With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
Erasmus said:
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".

When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
Erasmus said:
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.

I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
Erasmus said:
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
 
composer11 said:
Anyway, wondering if Apple will cut the prices the way the PC market dictates?? Anyone have any ideas?
Apple's business model is based on high margins. I don't think this is going to change.

My guess is that they will release upgraded systems more often, and discontinue the slower systems more often, and leave the prices approximately unchanged.

Don't expect dirt-cheap Macs (aside from closeout sales to dump old stock, of course), but do expect more powerful systems to come out much more rapidly.
composer11 said:
Now, if we could only get decent mic preamps, and everything wireless, guitar, etc, everything would be perfect.
You can get tons of great audio gear. But you're going to have to start shopping in music stores and not in computer stores. And be prepared to pay for the quality you get.
 
Bensley Server platform Processor Compatability

shamino said:
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.

Here it is straight from the horse's mouth.

Coming Sooner Than You Think: Intel Next-Generation Enterprise Platforms

INTEL DEVELOPER FORUM, San Francisco, March 7, 2006 – Pat Gelsinger, Intel senior vice president ...

"Further reinforcing Intel’s near–term portfolio of leading multicore products, Gelsinger also gave developers their first public view of a running quad–core processor, codenamed Clovertown, for dual–processor servers. Clovertown is socket–compatible with the Bensley platform and is slated to ship in early 2007. It will deliver increased processing capacity and is well–suited for multi–threaded applications, such as those used in databases, financial services and supply–chain management. Additionally, the company also plans to ship a quad–core processor –– codenamed Kentsfield –– for high–end desktop PCs in early 2007."
 
Mac Pro at WWDC

Given the change in Clovertown schedule, I expect that at WWDC Apple will release 2 "lower end" Mac Pro configurations both with dual Woodcrests. The higher end configuration with two Clovertowns will ship early Q1 (maybe around MW'07).

I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.

Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.
 
composer11 said:
For the laptop segment, by the Holiday's, the MacBooks should be equal to the QUAD G5 in power, with the MBP 8 cores (2x4), and desktops in all various ranges.....especially with UB programs, all the way up to 4x4.

You mean the Holiday season of 2007? You must believe in Santa Claus. You aren't going to be seeing Macbooks equaling the speed of the G5 Quad any time soon. Quad in a Macbook by December? No way. You won't see it in a MBP either...
 
shamino said:
Apple's business model is based on high margins. I don't think this is going to change.

My guess is that they will release upgraded systems more often, and discontinue the slower systems more often, and leave the prices approximately unchanged.

Don't expect dirt-cheap Macs (aside from closeout sales to dump old stock, of course), but do expect more powerful systems to come out much more rapidly.
You can get tons of great audio gear. But you're going to have to start shopping in music stores and not in computer stores. And be prepared to pay for the quality you get.


Yeah, I know, that's probably what they will do forcing you to pay top dollar.
Hope the Mac Books get dedicated GPU, intel is rumored to be working on something that should be on par with ATI/Nvida to be ready for Vista, meanwhile AMD is scooping up ATI.

Regarding music gear, I have a Mackie 400F which sounds nice, a tube pre amp and Rhodes NT2A, I was speaking of wireless. Everything wireless. LOL!
 
shamino said:
(Lots of Stuff...)

Well I bet that took a while...

Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?

Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.

No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:

Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!

BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
 
All Quad Mac Pros Is Highly Unlikely - Yet

mwswami said:
Given the change in Clovertown schedule, I expect that at WWDC Apple will release 2 "lower end" Mac Pro configurations both with dual Woodcrests. The higher end configuration with two Clovertowns will ship early Q1 (maybe around MW'07).

I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.

Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.
Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.

There are some who may never find a need for more than two cores. But therein creeps back the need for a cheaper dual core tower line in the same price range as the iMacs. Seems inevitable doesn't it? Expand the Tower line down to $999 and let it go all the way up to $3.5k. Six models instead of only 3 expensive ones.

January - March 2007

..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.

I found that word "OctoPod" in my Tiger's Oxford Dictionary. It's a REAL word.

When they get to 8 via a Yorkfield then the whole line can be based on the less expensive desktop family motherboards and chipsets except the extreeme top where pairs of Harpertown will make 16 etc etc.

You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
 
Only two weeks to go

Multimedia said:
Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
...
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.

Don't worry I won't flame you. You may turn out to be right. Only two weeks to go ...
 
Multimedia said:
..$999 - Dual 2 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.3 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.6 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.3 GHz Two Woodies later One Kentsfield


This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.


At those prices, sign me up for a Quad 2.3!!!! I'll buy that along with a newly designed 23" ACD for $699. :D
 
January - March 2007 Price List

Multimedia said:
January - March 2007

..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.

This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
THX1139 said:
At those prices, sign me up for a Quad 2.3!!!! I'll buy that along with a newly designed 23" ACD for $699. :D
Yeah I can see that this is a January 2007 price list not this year. Sorry for the time warped confusion. :eek:

You can already buy a 24" Dell 1920 x 1200 display for only $799 from a dealer who buys and sells them in bulk on eBay.
mwswami said:
A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.

Even a cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.

Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.
Yes I realize that. I forgot to put the time frame on the original list. I agree with your assessment of the imminent offerings this summer.
 
Not going to happen

THX1139 said:
At those prices, sign me up for a Quad 2.3!!!! I'll buy that along with a newly designed 23" ACD for $699. :D

A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.

Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.

Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.
 
mwswami said:
A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.

Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.

Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.

That's what Kentsfield is for. It is a single quad core chip, which is expected to fit into the cheaper motherboards for Conroe instead of the much more expensive motherboards for Woodcrest.

Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.
 
gnasher729 said:
That's what Kentsfield is for. It is a single quad core chip, which is expected to fit into the cheaper motherboards for Conroe instead of the much more expensive motherboards for Woodcrest.

Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.

So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?

I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.

So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.

Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.
 
Yorkfield Follows Kentsfield With 8 Cores In One Processor

mwswami said:
So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?

I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.
Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.
mwswami said:
So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.
Given the above reasons, I expect it will be the former. The whole line will be Conroe based EXCEPT for the ONE top model which will be based on a Woodcrest MoBo etc so each time the top doubles it's core count from 4 to 8 then 16, the lower models double theirs from 2 to 4 then 8, all in less than a year from now.
mwswami said:
Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.
I think it's safe to say we may witness the fastest acceleration in affordable computing power in the history of personal computing during this next year.
 
Multimedia said:
Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.

Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.

I don't believe Intel can go to 8 core chip before going to a true 4 core instead of 2 dual cores on the MCM. That may have to wait till the process moves to 45nm and they have the Common System Interface worked out i.e. towards the end of 2007. This is all an educated guess on my part ... nothing concrete.
 
mwswami said:
Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.
I don't know. Almost-two-years seems like enough time :p

("coming in the spring" would mean spring-2007, since we're in summer 2006 right now. "next spring" means the one after that - spring-2008.)
 
Yorkfield 8 Core Follows Kentsfield 4 Core On Conroe Front In 2007

mwswami said:
So you don't expect the Mac Pro at WWDC?? Or only a dual core version using Conroe?

I agree single Woodcrest doesn't make sense. So we have two options for Quad core - Dual Woodcrest and single Kentsfield. Of course 2xWodcrest is going to be more expensive but I wonder by how much more. I am guessing $400. But, if you do that, you have the same motherboard across the Mac Pro (and possibly shared with XServe as well) and for that $400 you also get FB-DIMM and higher RAM ceiling. Also, the same platform can be used with Clovertown to scale to 8 core workstation early Q1'07. If Kentsfield is used then 4 core is the end of the line.

So I don't expect Mac Pro to exclusively use Conroe/Kentsfield. Either two different boards - Conroe/Kentsfield on the low end and Woodcrest/Clovertown on the high end. Or Woodcrest/Clovertown across the board. Given the reasons above, I expect it will be the latter.

Conroe deserves to be in the Apple lineup. I expect it will be in the upgraded (perhaps a larger i.e. 23") iMac. Apple may also release another desktop to fill the gap between the Mini and the Pro. That option has been discussed here as well.
Multimedia said:
Not really. Yorkfield is the 8 core follow on to Kentsfield in the Conroe class motherboard. Should be shipping by next Spring.
mwswami said:
Next Spring??? Can you please point me to the source of that information.

I don't believe Intel can go to 8 core chip before going to a true 4 core instead of 2 dual cores on the MCM. That may have to wait till the process moves to 45nm and they have the Common System Interface worked out i.e. towards the end of 2007. This is all an educated guess on my part ... nothing concrete.
It's in the roadmap listed to follow Kentsfield.

"Yorkfield, eight-core MCM, 45 nm, 12 MiB L2, successor to Kentsfield"

Since Kentsfield is due Fall 2006, I IMAGINED Yorkfield would be ready to roll by Spring 2007. Maybe later? OK maybe later. I have no idea. Just feeling optimistic about Intel's accelerated rollout luck lately.

Well at the very least we will have pairs of Tigertons providing 8 cores by Spring 2007 as a stop-gap on a Woodcrest motherboard. Won't we?

My point wasn't so much exactly when Yorkfield will arrive as much as it was that Kentsfield is not THE END of increasingly more cores on the Conroe front as you had stated as fact.

Anyone else having confusion with all these -field, -town and -ton processor name suffixes? Aparently even the moderators here are. They have mispelled Clovertown in the original news story and post as well as on this forum's web page titles.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.