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.
Kentsfield, Cloverton Quad-Core CPUs Arriving Early?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
guzhogi said:
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
Macnoviz said:
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm
Chundles said:
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.
Chundles said:
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
Woodcrest vs UltraSparc T1
See http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 for comparison of Woodcrest, Opteron, and Ultrasparc T1.
Dual Woodcrest (4 threads) easily outperformed Ultrasparc T1 (32 threads). The power consumption of the dual 3.0GHz Woodcrest system came out to be 245W compared to 188W for the Sun T2000 with 8-core Ultrasparc T1. But, the metric that's most important is performance/watt and that's where Woodcrest came out as a clear winner.
See http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 for comparison of Woodcrest, Opteron, and Ultrasparc T1.
Dual Woodcrest (4 threads) easily outperformed Ultrasparc T1 (32 threads). The power consumption of the dual 3.0GHz Woodcrest system came out to be 245W compared to 188W for the Sun T2000 with 8-core Ultrasparc T1. But, the metric that's most important is performance/watt and that's where Woodcrest came out as a clear winner.
Carlson-online said:
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no.
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
TangoCharlie said:
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
'speakable items on' 'selecting hal9000 voice'
what are you doing dave?
you know i can't let you apply the filter to those pictures in that manner.
dave, i'm scared...
'speakable items off'
now we just need the big red glowing light on the front instead of the white one...
what are you doing dave?
you know i can't let you apply the filter to those pictures in that manner.
dave, i'm scared...
'speakable items off'
now we just need the big red glowing light on the front instead of the white one...
shawnce said:
Can't wait to hear your take on it, shawnce. I have to admit that I enjoy your rejoinders whenever the trolls show up, so your take is particularly refreshing in my opinion.
Hate to burst everyone's bubble, but...
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.Chundles said:
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
shawnce said:
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
whatever said:
That makes a lot of sense, actually. I hadn't thought of it, but with a server class processor ostensibly powering the Mac Pro, it begs the question of what the servers will get as an upgrade.
The simple answer--next generation server chips, duh!
satty said:
-satty
I just kicked of a 6450 frame render on Gabriel (see specs below). According to the average frame time, it'll take until August 4th to complete.
I'd reeeeeally like this alleged machine.
Development costs and timescale.....
Only time will tell.
I don't disagree with your logic.... and in time I think the iMac will move to Conroe; However, the Merom is a drop-in replacement for the Yonah, and that fact alone suggests to me that Apple will upgrade the iMac to Merom first (WWDC). The very fact that Merom and Conroe will both be "Core 2 Duo" will let Apple pop in a Merom initially and then "upgrade" to Conroe with a mainboard upgrade at a later date. As you say, I don't think heat is an issue here.GFLPraxis said:
Only time will tell.
j_maddison said:As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
argh
Anyone on here agree that we are entering the world of PC's of sh*ot in the way where we buy a Mac and 2 months later there's news of something better down the road? Or is this just for now since this is the transition period for Apple to the Intel chips. Just curious.
Anyone on here agree that we are entering the world of PC's of sh*ot in the way where we buy a Mac and 2 months later there's news of something better down the road? Or is this just for now since this is the transition period for Apple to the Intel chips. Just curious.
reallynotnick said:Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
kev0476 said:
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
sinisterdesign said:
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
Macnoviz said:
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.