whatever said:
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
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
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
whatever said:
Apple doesn't get to operate in a bubble anymore - in Intel Land you have to compete. If they executed your plan, Dell would just go and make a "workstation" with dual Kentsfield and Apple will get crushed in Photoshop benchmarks. No way they're going to allow that.
emotion said:
Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?
stuartluff said:
Absolutely.
The power consumption of a chip is proportional to the clock speed, multiplied by the voltage squared. So at the same voltage, a hypothetical 24 GHz chip would use eight times as much power as a single 3 GHz chip, and the same as eight 3 GHz chips.
However, with any given technology, you need higher voltage to achieve the higher clock speed. So with the same technology, that 24 GHz chip would need much much higher voltage than the 3 GHz chips and accordingly it would take much more energy than eight 3 GHz chips.
As an example, some iPods have two ARM chips running at half the clock speed and lower power instead of a single ARM chip running at higher speed, in order to safe power.
Zargot said:More like $13,950
You're both wrong. The price is infinite because it doesn't exist, and yet there is demand.
satty said:
True, but many applications are fast enough on a single core, and applications that are not fast enough _will_ be modified when multiple processors are common.
ClimbingTheLog said:
Probably Single CPU bound....
It will be gr8 being able to get 8 cores in a Mac, but if the software dosn't use it....
Someone already mentioned that it also gives you the possibility to use those cores by using many apps at once. This is true, but I wonder how many often you will actually use all those cores at once.
Let's hope the "opposite of Hyperthreading" will come along (Leopard feature???).. So, instead of a "emulating" a Dual Core / CPU config (like on later Pentium 4's), emulate a Single CPU on multiple cores.
Then, you get 8 * 3 GHz = 1 * 24 GHz...!!!
shelterpaw said:
I'm a Live user too. I wouldn't assume the forthcoming Live 6 supports more than two cores though.
I agree about Logic and the multi core support. They should have done this for the G5 quads though (I hear the quad owners scream
).Edit: apparently Live 6 supports more than two cores/procs
sinisterdesign said:
haha, then Doctor Q's signature could be-
"Oh do pay attention 007. In the wrong hands, this Octopussy could be very dangerous."
LOL.
sinisterdesign said:
NOW THAT, would be one CRAZZZZZYYY little baby POOOOOP
Maybe, Mac raised to the power of INFINITY -- FOR ALL YOU INFINITY LOOP LOVERS -- mobius loop that is !?!?!?!?!!??
Of course, Moby would have to a do a recording studio promo for that one or maybe http://www.mobiusmusic.com/.
I guess Macbooks will get Merom as soon as Merom is cheaper than the current Yonah and the Yonah Macbooks are sold out. And that might be pretty soon actually. By the way, Merom is pin compatible so Apple can just swap Ypnah for Merom. The user will have a hard time to do this, as the processor in Macbooks are soldered on. But in iMacs, no problemo.Stridder44 said:
Neither Apple or Dell operate in bubbles. They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.ClimbingTheLog said:
In 2007 we will finally get to see Apple force their way more into Sun's market.
whatever said:
NoNameBrand said:
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Dave187 said:with 8 cores, the aps will show up two secs BEFORE you'll have clicked on the icon.
-Dave187
Tachyon processing WooHooo!
With all these great technological feats you would think they could get a Mighty Mouse BT on my desk...
Lollypop said:
Actually, that was my point, but now that you mention it, reversed hyperthreading would solve some problems.
In the long run (really long run, I'm talking quantumcomputers here) however, you are right, and innovation in computing will mostly come from software and how you tell the computer what to do. The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going, well I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger. Boom. It happens.
emotion said:
This is true. Logic will use up to about half the available processing power. Using the kludge (which is pretty simple but has some limitations) you can get close to all of it. Which allows for a ton more power than any of the dual G5s.
Still, apple needs to update Logic ASAP to use the full power without a hack. I can't believe it's taken them this long, they BETTER make the fix for all quad machines and not just intel boxes.
whatever said:
I don't buy that. Apple needs a workstation machine with the fastest available chips. PC's will use them in workstations, it would make no sense to cripple the top of the line desktop machine! Servers are distinguished from the pro line because they have a completely different form factor and feature set, no need to add artificial distincions.
whatever said:
You don't think ANY pc makers will ship workstations with kentsfield? Why not? This is a chip that would be perfect for a workstation, you think nobody will take the opportunity to use it? The chips are fast as hell, what makes you think they only belong in servers? Are there features that can only be taken advantage of in a server and not in a workstation?
whatever said:
Kentsfield is not really targeted as a server class chip, it is targeted towards single socket desktop/workstation systems. I doubt we will ever see it an Xserve system.
Apple will likely use a single and dual Xeon 51xx (Woodcrest) in their Xserve systems possibly with the quad core Xeon a little farther down the road (aka Clovertown and later Tigerton).
Review... roadmap
whatever said:
Mac OS X already can deal with quad core systems and can support more cores without any real issues.
So We May Be Seeing A Very Short Life For What Steve Introduces August 7
So We May Be Seeing A Very Short Life For What Steve Introduces August 7. If true, this looks like Steve may be able to claim an all Quad Core plus Oct Core on top Mac Pro line PLUS Quad Core iMacs at his annual SF MacWorld SteveNote January 9,2007 perhaps with Leopard on board as well. Wouldn't that be a Merry belated Christmas and a Happiest of New Years?
So We May Be Seeing A Very Short Life For What Steve Introduces August 7. If true, this looks like Steve may be able to claim an all Quad Core plus Oct Core on top Mac Pro line PLUS Quad Core iMacs at his annual SF MacWorld SteveNote January 9,2007 perhaps with Leopard on board as well. Wouldn't that be a Merry belated Christmas and a Happiest of New Years?