Kentsfield (Quad-core Intel) by end of 2006?

[Multimedia]

Hoping Clovertown Mac Pro RAM Will Cost Less By When It Ships

I've heard about clovertown coming all along and have put off buying a Mac Pro. I'd much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work I do.

Of course almost everyone here knows I'm with you. I was surprised that the Mac Pro would require such expensive RAM which really puts me off. So I'm hoping that the popularity of Mac Pro RAM will drive down RAM cost to us by the time the Clovertown Mac Pro ships.

BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's Clovertown

If you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing.

Exactly my thinking as well.

 

[EagerDragon]

Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro

id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do

If you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing.

 

[sisyphus]

With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs...

 

[sord]

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs...

Depending on the applications you are going to use, you could cluster some minis.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

multiple cores != speed!!!!!

Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.

Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?

 

[massiv]

I think we all are getting caught up in the "core" crazy a little too much. I understand at a professional level the more cores the better. But Apple has delivered this target market its machine, the Mac Pro. I think the Mac Pro will see even more options in its configurations as time goes on, but I don't see them putting the next biggest and best chip in every product. After all, 90% of home computer users are using thier computers for basic functions and not heavy video or audio work, which means they don't need 4 cores. Apple is focusing on the digital lifestyle and this means they want to sell a customer hardware that will take care of this emerging market, like live streaming video rentals to their large screened LCD TV. I think the Mac Pro is the ever-expanding machine but look for huge price differences in its configs. An $800 difference in 2.66 to 3.0 GHz Xeon? All we do know is that Apple wants to rule the digital livingroom and probably is not concerned with bragging rights. But the obvious is true, there are some big steps ahead in processing power.

 

[Multimedia]

Market For A Headless Conroe Prosumer Mac Tower Has Got To Be Huge, Perhaps Biggest

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs...

You are the market Apple has got to be planning on winning. I have been using two monitors since 1986 when the Mac II made that possible. I might consider a mini - just for fooling around - if it had two moniotr ports.

This I see as the primary problem with the iMac as well. Although it does now allow spanning, the screens are going to outlast contemporary power levels over time thus making the idea of all-in-one very unattractive to those of us who want state-of-the-art power every 12-18 months or so and don't like the idea of a computer behind our screens. I like my computers on the floor.

What I want is the ability to have significant power along with the ability to hook up to 4 screens to that power not one or two - especially not the computer married to any displays.

I guess there are three types of people in the world:

1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.

I can see the mobile MacBook Pros as justifiably containing a computer married to a screen - but only with a Dual Link DVI port - unlike the mini and iMacs. Price of the MacBook explains the missing Dual Link DVI.

 

[sisyphus]

Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.

Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?

According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.

Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.

There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them.

 

[Multimedia]

Simultaneously Running One and Two Core Applications

Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.

Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?

How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores? You can run a bunch of things at once with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important, as I think so should you think - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. If anything, it's a good thing some only use one or two cores.

You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That's what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. On the contrary. If I had 8 cores I wouldn't have to quit Mail all the time.

Do you realize that Mail uses 100% of a core ALL THE TIME? If I leave it open I only have 3 cores to work with. I mean it's rediculous. I have to QUIT Mail to do my work. Absurd.

We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!

According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.

Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.

There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them.

You took the words right out of my fingers. Bravo sisyphus.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores?

Hundreds, apparently.

You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores.

Hence me saying "in tandem".

We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!

Yikes.

 

[StudioGuy]

An $800 difference in 2.66 to 3.0 GHz Xeon?

Actually, look at the Dell Precision 490 Workstation - going from dual 3.0 (Intel 5160) down to a dual 2.66 (Intel 5150) is $410/processor, or an $820 difference in price. Not Apple pushing that one.

I'm guessing any 8-core machine will initially be a top-entry (ala "fastest") if it is introduced too soon, and not affect the whole lineup. Otherwise I will have more trouble convincing myself to buy the dual 3.0 now . That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!

 

[MacinDoc]

According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it appears that the improvement was significantly overstated. Macrumors has now updated that thread.

 

[sisyphus]

That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!

Everybody does realize that this promo only applies to already existing hardware. It does not apply to the new Core 2 Duo iMacs, nor will it apply to any new hardware released on Tuesday. Just making sure everyone is in the know...

 

[sisyphus]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it appears that the improvement was significantly overstated. Macrumors has now updated that thread.

Doh! Oh well I still think there are many present and future uses for more cores. Especially if Apple releases a video airport express sorta thingy on Tuesday. If you could use your Mac as a video server that will do all the leg work then send it over the air to the "express" or multiple "expresses" in the house while still working on it, you've just developed yet another way to use up processor cycles on the machine. If SJ wants the Mac to be the hub of your digital lifestyle it is going to be asked to do more at once. Which is of course good!

 

[Multimedia]

$4k Clovertown Mac Pros Will Probably Come Out About The Same Time As Leopard

Actually, look at the Dell Precision 490 Workstation - going from dual 3.0 (Intel 5160) down to a dual 2.66 (Intel 5150) is $410/processor, or an $820 difference in price. Not Apple pushing that one.

I'm guessing any 8-core machine will initially be a top-entry (ala "fastest") if it is introduced too soon, and not affect the whole lineup. Otherwise I will have more trouble convincing myself to buy the dual 3.0 now . That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!

I agree. It will probably cost about $4k. And I think it's conservative to guess it won't be here before Leopard since Leopard will probably be able to deal with all those cores a lot better than Tiger ever will. So unless you are prepared for another 6-8 month wait, you should go ahead and pull the trigger now. I need you to help drive up the demand for that expensive RAM now please.

 

[Gurutech]

I'm expecting to see multimedia oriented (that looks like dvd players) that uses conroe and upgradable gpu.

waiting for the Showtime!!

 

[roland.g]

I guess there are three types of people in the world:

1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.

I have chatted with you, and after originally considering a Mini or iMac, I have ruled out the Mini, and now would either get an iMac or a Mac Pro, however while there is only a $100 difference between (see this thread) what I would get in those 2 machines (and that is before spending more $$ down the road for a 23" ACD), I still feel that the Mac Pro is overkill for me and yet I don't like the iMac AIO, though I would change my mind if it looked like a 23" ACD. The white turns me off. I really only want 1 screen, while I have used 2 I don't really need it. Likewise I like the 30" but have no need for something that big. A 23-24" is perfect for me. I might even wall mount it. And I liked the idea of the Mini, just not the performance. So I find myself saying I will make up my mind soon, but hoping the Mac Pro Jr. shows up before I do. Because I too want to add a second HDD. And I would gladly spend $2,700 - 3,300 for a 2.33 or so Mac Pro Jr, with 2GB RAM 2 250GB HDDs, 256MB VRAM, BT & Airport, BT keyboard & MM, 23" ACD & Applecare after EDU discount.

 

[WildPalms]

The iMacs will NEVER see Kentsfields. Apple would have to have put Conroe in the new iMacs for that even to be a remote possibility. Even if they had I would still say it would never get Kentsfields.

I mean people are saying that Conroe is too hot for the iMac as it is (I don't think they are) but Kentsfield is two Conroe dies on one package. Meaning almost double the power consumption and heat generation.

Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.

There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".

 

[sisyphus]

Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.

There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".

The thing is that it is very easy to layout a reasoning as to why Apple should/will use a Conroe chip in its line up. It is very difficult with the current product lineup to show why they wont.

As noted in a previous post, there is a $1000US price gap in their lineup that has been left in the lineup. There is currently a chip that would fill in that gap. This machine would steal slightly from both the lower and higher priced machines, yet open another market segment.

Apple has seen massive growth in the laptop market with the iBook. The MacBook perfectly filled a need with a certain market segment. The desktop Macs cover all of the segments except 1. This big gaping hole in their lineup has the perfect processor to meet its needs. Apple has designed a new case style for the Mac Pro. A smaller version would be simple to build re-using many of the components allowing for some economies of scale. This makes both the Mac Pro and the smaller sibling more cost effective in terms of components and assembly line manufacture.

The argument against goes. Well apple hasn't had a mid range headless machine since the G3 era. Which is of course true. However there was no way to differentiate products because there wasn't enough variability to the chips.

We now have:

Duo<Duo 2 (Merom) <Duo 2 (Conroe) <Xeon (Woodcrest)
(Mini < iMac < Mac < Mac Pro)

So just because Apple has had a big hole in its product matrix for the last few years means that it will continue to have a big hole in its product matrix until the end of time? Apple left that hole because it wasn't possible to create enough distiction between the product lines if they closed it. Now with the processors available from Intel, it is possible.

Apple is out to make $$$. It is a big corporation, and one that we all (usually) like because of the innovative easy to use products it delivers. It is making a MASSIVE consumer push right now. If a midrange machine will make them the most dough that is what they will deliver.

SJ likes clean product lines and that is what is going on.

Shuffle < Nano < iPod (< vPod)
MacBook < MacBook Pro
Mini < iMac (<Mac) < Mac Pro
X-Serve

They are all very clean product lines. The reason they destroyed all the product lines was that they had:

PM 5XXX
PM 6XXX
PM 7XXX
PM 8XXX
PM 9XXX

And there were overlapping prices and specs and God knows what. Unless you were a regular koolaid drinker it was extremely tough to keep track of what did what in the product matrix.

This will be a very clean and easy to understand matrix.

 

[AidenShaw]

However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.

Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?

The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.

The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)

While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.

Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I'm still taken aback by Sun doing what Intel's doing now, but doing it 8-10 years ago. What the heck happened to SUN?

Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?

The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.

The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)

While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.

Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....

 

[AidenShaw]

Ego

I'm still taken aback by Sun doing what Intel's doing now, but doing it 8-10 years ago. What the heck happened to SUN?

Macnealy's ego got in the way....

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs...

What I was getting at that I hear people aren't getting a Mac Pro (which is very quick) and a waiting for the Kentsfield or Clovertown Mac Pros which haven't even been considered to b released yet.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I hear that again and again, but I just can't believe it.. was it just him? How could someone so far ahead drop the ball like that? I know, Palm and BeOS...

Macnealy's ego got in the way....

 

[Erasmus]

I would love to see a mid-tower with these in it and there seems to be some demand for a mini-macpro among forum contributers (based on what I've seen). However, with the release of the 24" imac it makes me wonder if we would ever see a mid range tower. The 24" imac provides the increased power and improved GPU. Also if the GPU does turn out to be replaceable, it makes for a harder argument for mid-tower no? The price range does seem to fit well between the regular imacs and pros...

OK, Who knows where to buy a MXM GPU?
If it's not PCI Extreme, then it's not upgradeable.