Mac Pro and Woodcrest: Confirmed?

[AidenShaw]

Please repeat: "Yonah is SMP", "Conroe is SMP", "Woodcrest is SMP", "Merom is SMP"

SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.

Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.

It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.

Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

 

[Demoman]

Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.

It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.

Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.

 

[JFreak]

I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.

Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.

Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.

Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.

 

[Evangelion]

Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.

 

[THX1139]

if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.

I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.

 

[Evangelion]

Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe.

It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe 😉

 

[Evangelion]

wow, you just don't get it.

I do get it. It seems that YOU are not getting it.

am a freelance motion graphics designer.

Congratulations.

I work on many companies in L.A. and NY. After Effects, Photoshop and Illustrator are their core applications. Plus many print designers relly on Photoshop and Illustrator. Those people will not jump on the Pro Mac as long as the Adobe apps are not universal.

And those whose tools already are universal will gladly jump.

Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above. So my answer to that is none.

I don't care one bit about apps that can substityute Adobe's apps. What I did say that there's already tons of universal pro-apps out there. Not everyone lives and breathes Adobe.

If you are mainly a video editor, maybe it would be OK to upgrade because FCP will be universal, but I am talking about a major segment on the industry that solely relly on Adobe.

And I'm talking about those who do not rely on Adobe. They do exist.

This people will not jump on the bandwagon right away. This people wil not change and learn a new app just because the latest Mac is not suited for their needs. They will wait few more months.

Where exactly have I said that they should switch to some other app? Hell, where have I said that they should buy the MacPro?

So if you think Adobe apps can be substitute with something else on the professiopnal level, then you definately have no clue of what are you talking about.

Where exactly have I made that claim? The issue here is that you live and breathe Adobe. Well, good for you. There are others that do not, and they would be more than happy to switch to MacPro the moment it's released. We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?

 

[Evangelion]

This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.

Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's

No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.

Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.

 

[Evangelion]

The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.

I don't see much baiting in his post.

 

[THX1139]

We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?

After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.

 

[novagamer]

I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.

Aw you just ruined his fun.🙄

I think he has that in a text document and just copies and pastes it at will to argue semantics in threads largely unconcerned with them... heh.

Bow down to the all knowing, condescending poster with the gay porn actor's name. 😱 😛

 

[Evangelion]

After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.

Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!

Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.

I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.

What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.

 

[Mikael]

What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.

I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.

 

[Multimedia]

CS2 Is Not Going To Be Universal. CS3 Will Be Universal From Day One Next Year

I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.

Adobe made a strategic decision to go Universal with the CS3 Suite next year and meanwhile not to divert work to Universalize the CS2 Suite. If you need Adobe stuff all the time, just get a G5 Quad and you will be happy as a clam. It's still going to be the second fastest Mac after Mac Pros are out. 🙂

 

[Manic Mouse]

Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that?

Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.

And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.

Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.

Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.

If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?

Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?

But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.

Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...

It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.

If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.

What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.

And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.

I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yonah hardware is SMP, so is Conroe.

it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.

Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.

Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).

The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.

The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.

Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.

 

[Eidorian]

Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.

The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).

PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)

PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)

To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).

Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?

 

[Manic Mouse]

Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?

Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.

Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.

For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.

 

[aswitcher]

I can see the iMac getting a makeover. The switch to intel was a rush job in my mind, and I think they are working on a modified shell to better cope with components and heat for a faster intel line for the next few years.

 

[jiggie2g]

Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.

Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.

For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.

I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.

The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.

 

[Eidorian]

Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer.

Um, it's basically the same chip. Conroe just doesn't meet the thermal requirements to be called "Merom".

I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.

Apple controls the supply and we live with it. Sure we'd like to be able to pick CPU options (ala PC manufacturers) but Apple hasn't give that to us yet.

Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.

I would be happy with a Merom iMac. In fact I expect Merom to be in the iMac. They share the same socket. It's an easy update path for Apple.

Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.

For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.

We'd all like Apple to be more like Dell in terms of price, model, and chip selection.

 

[Evangelion]

Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.

Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?

 

[Evangelion]

Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.

Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.

Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.

More work = higher price.

Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.

iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.

The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?

Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.

It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.

you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).

If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.

What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.

And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.

You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.

I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead

Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.

You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.

 

[Mord]

the imac G5 has sufficient cooling to handle conroe, the macbook just has a heatplate connected to a heatpipe connected to small radiator, the imac has a full blow large copper heatsink over it similar to those used on 1U servers which can handle 100w xeons.

 

[Silentwave]

I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.

Adobe is weird...but I think they have a lot more up their sleeve than just universal. I think they want it to run extremely well on intel macs, and perhaps continue work at the same time on making more of their features take advantage of quads.