Mac Pro To Continue Quad-Core Tradition? Woodcrest?

[pyropath]

However, with quad-core on a single chip (Kentsfield) not due until Q1 2007, Apple will have to employ two dual-core chips like today's Quad.

This is not strictly true. Kentsfield is a Multi Chip Module (MCM- a design first used by the POWER4) of 2x dual core chips in one module, not a single quad core.

 

[milo]

As is obviously apparent, I do not read the hardware forums/threads. Even so in my mind it is a backwards step if you transition from a dual CPU configuration to a single CPU config, no matter how many cores you have. Why would apple want to do that? Obviously they did to some extent with the dual core G5s but to me, it would be silly for apple to go to single CPU Pro computers with the quad core Conroe. Why settle for four when you could have eight? Why settle for eight when you can have 16 etc.

Cost. A quad core conroe will likely be much cheaper than two dual core woodcrests, and the single socket motherboard is much cheaper as well. It's the same reason you sell different speeds of the same machine at different prices, instead of having every mac with a 2.16 core duo and raising most of the prices quite a bit.

It really does make more sense to use more cores on the same CPU, performance will usually be a little better and there are cost savings on both the chip and motherboard. There's really no reason to use more CPU's instead of more cores, it's not a backward step at all.

 

[BenRoethig]

That makes no sense. If they're all woodcrest, then prices will increase especially on the base model. Meaning that apple wouldn't have a tower under 3k probably? Now THAT would make dell happy.

A line with a range of prices and performances seems to be most competitive with dell. If dell is shipping those three configurations (which they will), how can you be competitive by offering LESS configurations, especially with nothing on the low end?

Or do you expect Dell to ship a config better than quad cores of woodcrest?

And I hate to break this to you, but the low end "pro" tower IS a consumer desktop machine. And I don't really mind that, I'd just like to see a configuration that allows a price drop on that model (assuming we don't see a cheaper mini tower).

$1999 is not low end. In the consumer desktop class it is very high end. Also, a Single core woodcrest is very doable at that price.

 

[neocell]

Did you read what you wrote before pressing the Submit button? I have no idea what you mean.

Well it makes sense to me. Let me try again.

Why go from a computer architecture in which you can use two CPUs (ie quad G5, 2 dual core CPUs) to a new computer architecture in which only one CPU can be used (ie using Conroe, since apparently Conroe cannot function in a multiple CPU configuration as the MP G5s and Woodcrest can). Even if Conroe had eight cores, why disable your line up by going to a single CPU system, when if you use the Woodcrest version you could have 2 CPUs in one computer and thus 16 cores.

"Double your pleasure, double your fun with
Dual Proc, Dual Proc, Dual Proc Computers"

Hopefully that's clear, or else I'll try one last time

Cost. A quad core conroe will likely be much cheaper than two dual core woodcrests, and the single socket motherboard is much cheaper as well. It's the same reason you sell different speeds of the same machine at different prices, instead of having every mac with a 2.16 core duo and raising most of the prices quite a bit.

It really does make more sense to use more cores on the same CPU, performance will usually be a little better and there are cost savings on both the chip and motherboard. There's really no reason to use more CPU's instead of more cores, it's not a backward step at all.

I'm not saying that though. I agree with what you said, but why only use 1 quad Conroe, when you could use 2 (a la it's bigger brother the quad woodcrest, or "Conroe that can play with others" whatever you want to call it). Yeah I know cost, but they've been doing this for years in the past. Have chips really become that much more expensive, than when the first dual processor came out? (keeping inflation in mind of course)

I think of it as a backwards step because it's removing greater potential.

 

[brianus]

Cost. A quad core conroe will likely be much cheaper than two dual core woodcrests, and the single socket motherboard is much cheaper as well. It's the same reason you sell different speeds of the same machine at different prices, instead of having every mac with a 2.16 core duo and raising most of the prices quite a bit.

It really does make more sense to use more cores on the same CPU, performance will usually be a little better and there are cost savings on both the chip and motherboard. There's really no reason to use more CPU's instead of more cores, it's not a backward step at all.

I agree when it comes to the low end models, but at the high end I think neocell has a point; why not continue using a chip that can be paired, so that every time they come out with a model with twice as many cores, the high end Mac will have double that.

This after all is what they did when the dual-core G5's were released -- chucked the dual-processor configuration on the low end because it was no longer necessary, but took advantage of both on the high end to double the number of cores.

 

[danielwsmithee]

I agree with what you said, but why only use 1 quad Conroe, when you could use 2.

Maybe you should have read more of the hardware forums. Just like Conroe does not support dual-socket configurations, the first quad-core CPU will not support dual-socket configuration. It will be another 6 months (next summer) before a processor with 4 cores can use two CPU's.

You start with 2x2. (August '06)
Then move to 4x1. (Spring '07)
Then move to 4x2. (Late summer '07)

All of the CPU's are not available at the same time. Apple has to use intel roadmap and timetable just like every other computer manufacturer.

It is an upgrade from 2x2 to 4x1. Just look at the performance increase we saw moving from the dual-processor G5's to the dual-core G5's. The dual-core 2.3 Ghz outperform the dual-processor 2.7 GHz machines on many tasks!!

 

[~Shard~]

My most confident predictions have failed in the past, so we'll see.

Ah don't be too hard on yourself, you never know, you might be right this time - just wait and see.

 

[shabbasuraj]

quadcore? meh..

I want octcore.

 

[milo]

$1999 is not low end. In the consumer desktop class it is very high end. Also, a Single core woodcrest is very doable at that price.

All the more reason to either add a mini tower or drop the price on the base tower. If you go quad core woodcrest on the base model, you're raising the price even more. Dell will have a single conroe, Apple needs to have a model competitive with it. Same goes for other speeds of conroe as well as quad woodcrest.

You're not actually suggesting apple should go SINGLE woodcrest, are you? That would be a waste of money and less competitive with the pcs.

Whatever price single chip (I assume you mean chip and not core since none of these chips are available single core) woodcrest is doable at, conroe is doable considerably cheaper with the same results.

Why go from a computer architecture in which you can use two CPUs (ie quad G5, 2 dual core CPUs) to a new computer architecture in which only one CPU can be used (ie using Conroe, since apparently Conroe cannot function in a multiple CPU configuration as the MP G5s and Woodcrest can). Even if Conroe had eight cores, why disable your line up by going to a single CPU system, when if you use the Woodcrest version you could have 2 CPUs in one computer and thus 16 cores.

Because conroe gives you much better bang for your buck in a single chip configuration. What's the point of using chips that can run in pairs if you're not going to use that feature? And what's the point of using a pair of dual core chips if you can use a single chip with four cores, which gives you the same performance for much less money?

How is a chip with more cores and better performance "disabled"? You seem to be assuming that apple can only use one kind of chip, doesn't it make much more sense to use the cheaper chip for single cpu configs and the more expensive one for multiple cpus?

I'm not saying that though. I agree with what you said, but why only use 1 quad Conroe, when you could use 2 (a la it's bigger brother the quad woodcrest, or "Conroe that can play with others" whatever you want to call it). Yeah I know cost, but they've been doing this for years in the past. Have chips really become that much more expensive, than when the first dual processor came out? (keeping inflation in mind of course)

I think of it as a backwards step because it's removing greater potential.

You use one conroe because it's cheaper, and there's demand for a cheaper tower. Why not just use a 2.16 duo in every current mac? Sure, it's better, but a mini would start at $1399.

What do you mean, they've been doing this for years in the past? They've had single/dual G5's, then they had dual/quad. They have slower and fewer cpu's in the cheaper towers. In order to make the cheapest intel tower cheap enough, they'll use a single chip, dual core, and the conroe is the best deal for that configuration.

If you put two (dual) woodcrests into the cheapest tower, what would you use for the higher ones? And do you seriously think consumers would accept a price boost of hundreds of dollars, if not $1k on the *lowest* model?

I agree when it comes to the low end models, but at the high end I think neocell has a point; why not continue using a chip that can be paired, so that every time they come out with a model with twice as many cores, the high end Mac will have double that.

This after all is what they did when the dual-core G5's were released -- chucked the dual-processor configuration on the low end because it was no longer necessary, but took advantage of both on the high end to double the number of cores.

But they WILL use a chip that can be paired, woodcrest, in the high end. But why would you use woodcrest for the cheaper model in a single configuration when you can save a ton of money by using the conroe? The high end WILL have double the cores of the low end one, which will continue when four-core chips ship.

They ARE doing what they did with the G5. Only difference is, this time around there are two versions of the "g5", one that runs alone and is cheaper, and one that runs in pairs and costs more. Hypothetically, wouldn't you agree that it would be foolish if apple used the pricier "pairable g5" by itself?

 

[AidenShaw]

2GHz Yonah MacBook Benchmarks Show Rosetta Photoshop Beats Native Windoze Photoshop

Yeah, right...

If something seems to good to be true, it probably is. Bare Feats has been benchmarking for a long time - I would tend to believe their results over those from a random web post.

BTW, MultiMedia, your picture looks like you're old enough to use the name "Windows" for the Microsoft operating system instead of a sophomoric nickname. You demean yourself. (See definition #2)

 

[whatever]

No, I get it. That was pretty much my whole point. Also, I couldn't see them pricing this mini-tower less than an iMac like you said. So, the same chip the iMac will have, but expandable? And it costs less than the iMac? Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

I think you get it too!

The idea of Apple dedicating resources to a mini-tower is just stupid. What type of expandability are you looking for? More hard drives? You can do that with an iMac. A second monitor? You can do that with an iMac. The only think I can think of that you can't do with an iMac is change the video card.

The reason the Cube did not succeed was that it was to close to the Mac tower in price point and features. Did it look cool? Yes. Could it do most everything a tower could do? Yes. But at the end of the day it was the full tower that consumers bought not the Cube.

The arguments against the iMac is just stupid. If the monitor dies, you're screwed. Duh! If the video card died on a mini tower I would be screwed also!

 

[neocell]

Maybe you should have read more of the hardware forums. Just like Conroe does not support dual-socket configurations, the first quad-core CPU will not support dual-socket configuration. It will be another 6 months (next summer) before a processor with 4 cores can use two CPU's.

You start with 2x2. (August '06)
Then move to 4x1. (Spring '07)
Then move to 4x2. (Late summer '07)

All of the CPU's are not available at the same time. Apple has to use intel roadmap and timetable just like every other computer manufacturer.

It is an upgrade from 2x2 to 4x1. Just look at the performance increase we saw moving from the dual-processor G5's to the dual-core G5's. The dual-core 2.3 Ghz outperform the dual-processor 2.7 GHz machines on many tasks!!

We're mixing things up here, as I don't believe you're seeing what I'm trying to say. I never said (or meant to say, maybe it was interpreted that way) that transitioning from a dual CPU to a single CPU would be a performance decrease on the machine. It hopefully won't be, as the G5 transitions you pointed out bear fruit to. But using just a single CPU IS a step back in the sense that you could be using 2 of them and getter twice the kick. If a single dual-core 2.3GHz G5 was better than a 2.7GHz dual proc setup, then how much better would it have been to used the same dual processor setup for the older 2.7 G5, but drop in 2 2.3GHz dual cores? (yeah the quad). So therefore in my mind, going from a double CPU design to a single CPU design is a step back (even if it does do more teraflops than the previous dual CPU set up) because you could have twice as much with a new dual CPU system.

 

[SeaFox]

Nice to hear we're getting some serious iron in the new MacPro. I want the damn case to shrink. It's just a monster right now.

 

[AidenShaw]

Argument for single Woody in a ProMac

You're not actually suggesting apple should go SINGLE woodcrest, are you? That would be a waste of money and less competitive with the pcs.

Assumption 1: Apple comes out with the new form-factor dual-core Conroe Mini-Tower to plug the huge gap between the MiniMacIntel and the maxi-tower.

Assumption 2: Since the maxi-tower no longer has to cool the G5 furnaces, it is redesigned (internally at least) to support 4 to 6 3.5" disk drives, and possibly a second optical.

Based on these two assumptions, an entry ProMac Tower with a single Woody might be attractive to someone building a file server or other system which was not CPU-bound.

It's probably unlikely that Apple will do this, but I wanted to point out one reasonable case where a maxi-tower with a single Woody would make sense.

 

[brianus]

But they WILL use a chip that can be paired, woodcrest, in the high end. But why would you use woodcrest for the cheaper model in a single configuration when you can save a ton of money by using the conroe? The high end WILL have double the cores of the low end one, which will continue when four-core chips ship.

They ARE doing what they did with the G5. Only difference is, this time around there are two versions of the "g5", one that runs alone and is cheaper, and one that runs in pairs and costs more. Hypothetically, wouldn't you agree that it would be foolish if apple used the pricier "pairable g5" by itself?

Sorry, I must have misunderstood then. I thought the argument was that they should eventually ditch dual-processor configurations altogether, even for the high end, since future iterations of Conroe will support more than 2 cores. It definitely looks right now like putting Woodcrests in the high end and Conroes in the low end will be the only way to make the lower end ones affordable, which is certainly going to continue to be necessary regardless of whether they're sold as a separate mini-tower line between the iMac and the "Mac Expert", or if they're all still sold as Mac Pros. A $1000 gap between the consumer and pro machines just will not do, especially for my line of work...

 

[neocell]

Okay, after rereading most of this thread, I think we're pretty much in a agreement for the most part. Saying the same things, but from different angles and in different words. It seems panties may be starting to get bunched, so I just wanted to say.

Yeah, for the new MacPros whatever they come with.

Hopefully they'll come with a dual processor option so we can take advantage of quad core intel macs, and more...

**EDIT**

Sorry, I must have misunderstood then. I thought the argument was that they should eventually ditch dual-processor configurations altogether

this is what I thought too

 

[~Shard~]

quadcore? meh..

I want octcore.

So you're just going to bypass Tigerton and hold off for Dunnington?

 

[milo]

The idea of Apple dedicating resources to a mini-tower is just stupid. What type of expandability are you looking for? More hard drives? You can do that with an iMac. A second monitor? You can do that with an iMac. The only think I can think of that you can't do with an iMac is change the video card.

The reason the Cube did not succeed was that it was to close to the Mac tower in price point and features. Did it look cool? Yes. Could it do most everything a tower could do? Yes. But at the end of the day it was the full tower that consumers bought not the Cube.

The arguments against the iMac is just stupid. If the monitor dies, you're screwed. Duh! If the video card died on a mini tower I would be screwed also!

First, a mini tower is probably the easiest box to make, one of the best arguments for it is that it would take minimal resources to design.

You can't put a second hard drive into an imac, can you? There are still things that are either cheaper or only available on a pci card.

The reason the cube failed was that it was overpriced (I agree that it was too close to the towers in price, but it was too far away in features). A mini tower would have to be priced reasonably to succeed. But it would be cheap for apple to make, so they could easily have a cheap one and still make a decent profit.

If the video card dies in a mini tower, you're fine. Just replace the video card. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF IT.

But using just a single CPU IS a step back in the sense that you could be using 2 of them and getter twice the kick.

Sure, but going to double the cpus doubles the cpu cost (not to mention raising the cost of the motherboard). So you put dual woodcrest in the base model. And the cost goes from $1999 to $3499. Do you seriously think that all mac buyers are going to be OK with that? What do you tell the consumer who has $1999 to spend, is more interested in an affordable machine, and would be fine with two cores, while four is overkill?

Based on these two assumptions, an entry ProMac Tower with a single Woody might be attractive to someone building a file server or other system which was not CPU-bound.

Sure, this is possible. But your scenario still has apple shipping a single conroe model, I was addressing the notion of apple only shipping woodcrest in the towers, using it for both single and dual configs.

 

[boncellis]

So you're just going to bypass Tigerton and hold off for Dunnington?

I think Intel needs to change the names. This whole "-ton" nomenclature reminds me of Kevin Klein's character in "A Fish Called Wanda" where he introduces himself as "Manfred-jen-son-ton" to Archie's wife. Clever bit, though easily confusing.

Btw, ~Shard~, what did the Simpsons mean by the joke about taking pharmaceuticals that would make Regina look like Saskatoon? Can you enlighten me?

 

[~Shard~]

Btw, ~Shard~, what did the Simpsons mean by the joke about taking pharmaceuticals that would make Regina look like Saskatoon? Can you enlighten me?

Actually, I can't think of anything off the top of my head which that would refer to specifically. Sure, there's a friendly rivalry between the cities, but other than that, there's nothing "drug-related" that would make that comment more applicable - it may have just been a random thing that they chose those 2 cities...

The gag that is easier to interpret was on one trip when you can see the welcome sign to Winnipeg that states "We are boring here, what's your excuse?"

 

[boncellis]

Actually, I can't think of anything off the top of my head which that would refer to specifically. Sure, there's a friendly rivalry between the cities, but other than that, there's nothing "drug-related" that would make that comment more applicable - it may have just been a random thing that they chose those 2 cities...

The gag that is easier to interpret was on one trip when you can see the welcome sign to Winnipeg that states "We are boring here, what's your excuse?"

Thanks for the response. I love learning about the world around me. Though I don't believe I'll ever make it to Winnipeg...

This is why I hang out in this forum. Brilliant members, brilliant discussion.

 

[MrCrowbar]

We've seen the transition to Intel Processors making certain (CPU-Intensive) Benchmarks 2 times faster on the iMac and 4 times faster on the Macbook Pro. I'd say even more on the Macbook since the iBooks it replaces were clocked to be under the powerbooks.

So I expect the PowerMac replacement has to be at least 2 times faster than the PowerMacs we have now. I doubt you could do that for the current quad,even with 8 cores.

I say we'll have Woodcrest along the line (remember the G5 was a server CPU when the PowerMac came out). My guess is:
base model:1 Woodcrest
middle model:

 

[morespce54]

I wanted to vote for the G4 G3 choice just because it was funny....

Actually, my faithful G4 is (still) kind of cool...
...but then, I don't own a PWG5... so maybe I'm a tad jealous...

 

[milo]

base model:1 Woodcrest

Have you read ANY of this thread? Specifically the MANY posts explaining that single woodcrest is NO FASTER than single conroe. No advantages in the single config. Period. And it's more expensive.

Really, you might want to look back a little at the thread.

 

[Multimedia]

Dual Tigerton If It Beats Dunnington To Market

So you're just going to bypass Tigerton and hold off for Dunnington?

No way man. However they deliver 8 cores first, I am there.