Kentsfield, Cloverton Quad-Core CPUs Arriving Early?

[shamino]

Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already.

At the very least, Spotlight indexing won't kill the performance of my foreground app 😎

 

[adamfilip]

Now you just need to decide what color your want your new computer... (again)

I want Apple to take the current PowerMac G5 Case
make it 25% shorter, add a second optical drive
and two more Internal hard drives
add some External Sata ports. and 4 more USB2 ports
1 more front usb2 port
make the mic port powered

and then make the case black anodized aluminum. and have the apple logo on the sides backlit just like the notebooks

 

[mwswami]

If you get away from the desktop and look to the server market, however, the picture changes. A web server may only be running one copy of Apache, but it may create a thread for every simultaneous connection. If you have 8 cores, then you can handle 8 times as many connections as a 1-core system can (assuming sufficient memory and I/O bandwidth, of course.) Ditto for database, transaction, and all kinds of other servers. More cores means more simultaneous connections without performance degradation.

I agree with all you said except for the above. Most servers don't use a thread per connection model. Using non-blocking, asynchronous, or event based IO you can get a lot higher scalability with far fewer threads. But its true - you get more work done with more cores.

Multi-core systems on the server are also great for supporting virtual environments. The higher the number of cores, memory etc, the better it is for supporting larger number of virtual servers.

 

[Multimedia]

Best Value Right Now Is Refurbished Quad G5 @ $2799

hi,
i've just sold my dual g5 because
i plan to buy a new macpro in august.
But seems that it will be already obsolate after 3 months.
Please can you tell me if the socket of woodcrest
will make the macpro upgradable one day,
or these new type of processors need differet socket?
Thanks.

Woodcrest socket may accept a cloverton Quad Core twice. But we just don't know yet because silicon may need to be added to manage 8 cores instead of 4.

Your best value would to buy a refurb Quad G5 for $2799. How much did you get for what model?

 

[Multimedia]

I NEED 16 Cores NOW

It really depends on your application.

On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.

If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.

With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...

Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.

I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)

I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.

I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.

You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.

This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.

So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.

I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.

I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.

 

[yac_moda]

Get with the program you guys ...

... start think the way APPLE think 😱


Apple will NOT release such a HIGH END MACchine without spotlighting a use 😱 😱

Such a most excellent MACchine would be released with Bluray and the computing power would be used to burn to ALL THAT SPACE in human as opposed to GEOLOGICAL time spans 😱 😱 😱

 

[shamino]

I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.

You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.

All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.

OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.

 

[Multimedia]

Maybe Not Today, But In Future ...

All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.

OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.

I may not be typical today, but in future a majority of Western Pop-Culture type users - not the world - will want to be able to archive HDTV to mp4 off their original recordings in a flash and only more cores will solve that problem.

And I never said anything about needing ten thousand cores etc. I think it is quite realistic for the majority of Western Pop-Culture Type Nationalities ONLY users to need 16 or more cores by 2010. Thank God we will begin to get them by 2008. 😱

I don't begin to pretend we are discussing the world's users' needs here. Only Westerners with heavy Pop-Culture Multimedia type usage - Video iPods HDTV Sat Radio etc.

I believe that there is a fundamental lack of imagination on this front - because it hasn't been possible to date, therefore it isn't in the consciousness of many users yet as a possibility they would think of doing. It's not so much that I'm atypical as it is I am already thinking outside the box of how we've been doing stuff to date. Soon many will begin to see the new ways we will be able to get stuff done faster thanks to more Cores inside.

 

[shamino]

i've just sold my dual g5 because
i plan to buy a new macpro in august.

You sold your existing computer now, so you can replace it with a system that has not yet been announced?

And what if this system doesn't ship until October or November?

I hope that G5 wasn't your only computer.

But seems that it will be already obsolate after 3 months.

"Obsolete"? Because it isn't the fastest computer in the world?

I hate to break it to you, but if you define "obsolete" as "less powerful than the best in the world", then you're going to be buying new computers every three months for the rest of your life.

So Intel is coming out with faster chips on a rapid schedule, so what? Even if Apple releases updated systems every three months, so what? Does this somehow mean the computer you buy today will suddenly become incapable of running the applications you want to run?

 

[mwswami]

16 cores etc

I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.

Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?

 

[Multimedia]

Only Want To Pay $4k Or Less For More Faster Cores

Hey Multimedia, just curious, I wonder what's your current (something you want to use for the next 1-2 years) idea of the ultimate machine wrt number of Cores, Memory, Storage, etc. And, how much are you willing to pay for it?

Under $4k whatever state of the offerings are. I am not writing about wanting to pay for expensive servers etc. I am only referring to Mac Pro top of the lines. So I am looking foward to the 8 core starter kit this Winter. 😀

Mine is not RAM intensive work. I have 6GB of ram now and it is more than enough. I also have several Terabytes of HDs already. 400GB HDs are down to $100 now so Storage is pretty cheap with each Terabyte down to $250 or 25¢ a GB.

 

[mwswami]

Under $4k whatever state of the offerings are. I am not writing about wanting to pay for expensive servers etc. I am only referring to Mac Pro top of the lines. So I am looking foward to the 8 core starter kit this Winter. 😀

Mine is not RAM intensive work. I have 6GB of ram now and it is more than enough. I also have several Terabytes of HDs already. 400GB HDs are down to $100 now so Storage is pretty cheap.

Yes, with the possibility of a Mac Pro with 8 core on the horizon, it makes sense to skip the 4 core altogether. Or, start with lower end of 4 cores (say 2GHz) and then, if necessary and possible, upgrade it to 8 cores. I wonder if waiting for 8 cores is going to be a common sentiment. In that case, it would make sense for Apple to offer an upgrade path to it.

 

[Multimedia]

Imagining Upgradablity May Be Risky

Yes, with the possibility of a Mac Pro with 8 core on the horizon, it makes sense to skip the 4 core altogether. Or, start with lower end of 4 cores (say 2GHz) and then, if necessary and possible, upgrade it to 8 cores. I wonder if waiting for 8 cores is going to be a common sentiment. In that case, it would make sense for Apple to offer an upgrade path to it.

There may be unknown variables supporting 8 cores from 4 such that I would not want to take that path. I would rather have 8 cores on a new motherboard with faster ram etc supported to get the most out of all of them at newer faster speeds.

 

[mwswami]

Bensley Platform

There may be unknown variables supporting 8 cores from 4 such that I would not want to take that path. I would rather have 8 cores on a new motherboard with faster ram etc supported to get the most out of all of them at newer faster speeds.

Intel's Bensley platform was designed for Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown families of Xeon processors. So the system components like mobo and memory will remain the same. Any changes will be incremental.

Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.

I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... 😀 😀

 

[cgc]

All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.

OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.

It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...😕

 

[Multimedia]

Takes A Lot Of Cores To Encode Recordings To DVD Images & Rip Them To mp4 Archivals

It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...😕

I'm not ripping DVDs. I'm ripping DVD IMAGES made with Toast from EyeTV2 Digital SD and HD recordings to archive off air broadcast recordings for my personal use only. Nothing to do with seeding anything to anyone. Need more cores to encode and rip simultaneously instead of sequentially. Much faster to do a bunch of one or two shows simultaneously than larger sets sequentially. More cores will also allow for faster compacting of the edited shows - IE removal of ads - in the first place.

 

[Macnoviz]

I'm not ripping DVDs. I'm ripping DVD IMAGES made with Toast from EyeTV2 Digital SD and HD recordings to archive off air broadcast recordings for my personal use only. Nothing to do with seeding anything to anyone. Need more cores to encode and rip simultaneously instead of sequentially. Much faster to do a bunch of one or two shows simultaneously than larger sets sequentially. More cores will also allow for faster compacting of the edited shows - IE removal of ads - in the first place.

Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.

 

[Multimedia]

Duplicating DVDs/CDs Is Not Processor Intensive At All

Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.

I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.

 

[Multimedia]

2x Performance Improvement Is Not As Important To Me As 2x The Cores Is

Intel's Bensley platform was designed for Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown families of Xeon processors. So the system components like mobo and memory will remain the same. Any changes will be incremental.

Of course things like Blue Ray and 802.11n may not be offered in the next release but only in Rev 2. Or, they will be cheaper.

Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?

I know you already have a quad-core PowerMac so it makes sense for you to wait .... unless SJ is able to tempt you come WWDC with promise of 2x performance etc. ... 😀 😀

I don't think 2x performance would impress me enough. It's not so much the increase in "performance" as it is the number of cores I care about - definitly waiting for 8 then 16. And there's also the Leopard onboard factor I would like to wait for. And Santa Rosa in the MacBook Pro.

 

[mwswami]

8 Cores = 4 Mac Minis

I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.

One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.😉

 

[mwswami]

Link for Bensley

Interesting. You know links where we can learn more about Bensley?

TechReport: The Bensley server platform debuts

 

[THX1139]

I've already got one. A SuperMac C500 to be precise! (Well, actually it's an Apus 2000, but in the US it was the C500).

SuperMac was the brandname UMAX used for thier Mac clones. Check out
http://home.earthlink.net/~supermac_insider/

🙂

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.

Some peoples choice of hobby boggles my mind.

 

[Multimedia]

4 x $599 Is Still $2400 and No More Than 2 Cores Ever In Use By One Application

One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.😉

Problem with that arrangement is that you are limited to the use of two cores for any one appication and there are already several I use that can use up to almost 3 at once. It would also get very confusing which mini you are on at a given moment.

Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. 😀

 

[mwswami]

One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.😉

Sorry, I just noticed that the $599 models doesn't have a SuperDrive. BUT going to the $799 model may still make a lot of sense for you. All the work units are independent of each other and hence easily distributable to the Minis form your existing PowerMac. Hey, you could even figure out how to use XGrid for this. I would love to hear from you if you research this further.

 

[mwswami]

Mac Mini Colocation

Problem with that arrangement is that you are limited to the use of two cores for any one appication and there are already several I use that can use up to almost 3 at once. It would also get very confusing which mini you are on at a given moment.

Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. 😀

Got it. Thanks!

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