Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro to Get 6-Core Xeon Gulftown Processor in 2010?

If there are still any doubters ( I can't imagine there are) that Apple shouldn't of switched over to Intel, this should be shut them up.
Intel are moving at incredible pace with their chips, and all of us are reaping the benefits.

Apple would of been completely irrelevant had they not switched, apart from the ipod or iphone of course.
 
xDYLANx said:
Now all we need are apps that utilize the full power of all these silly cores. :)
Click to expand...

As a Photoshop user I am still waitng for Adobe to make use of more than 1 core - especially with opening and saving....

So I stick to my 2 year old 8 core Macpro that has never been used properly yet...
 
Scottcop said:
If there are still any doubters ( I can't imagine there are) that Apple shouldn't of switched over to Intel, this should be shut them up.
Intel are moving at incredible pace with their chips, and all of us are reaping the benefits.

Apple would of been completely irrelevant had they not switched, apart from the ipod or iphone of course.
Click to expand...

Apple had little choice, really. IBM/Freescale was dragging their feet for quite a while with processor releases, if I remember correctly.
 
This info tempts me to sell my 09 quad now and save up for the new computers. Even a 25% speed increase is worth it for me.

Although some posters have made a good point - 3 of my cores hardly get used right now. I'm not even getting all that I can out of my MP.
 
haravikk said:
I don't know enough to give you exact performance characteristics, but 24 single-core machines with similar specs (RAM speed etc.) will out perform the Mac Pro by quite a large margin, but will also cost quite a bit more too!

It's important to note that the 24 logical threads isn't the same as having 24 cores, and having 12 cores isn't exactly the same as having 12 processors. Multi-core computing is definitely best way to get more processing power into machines than separate processors since they can share buses to memory etc., but it's important to bear in mind that they will be sharing the same RAM, hard-disks, and other hardware, so they will compete for resources in the majority of cases.

So if your simulations are completely separate (no data sharing at all) then separate machines will win hands down, and probably with fairly low-end parts, but it'll still cost you a bundle more to set-up and to run. The Mac Pro would have the advantage that you can also use it to kick the ass out of any more complex simulations, for example if you wanted to run 6 that require four threads each or even one really complex simulation.

Still a machine with 24 logical threads is appealing, my 8-thread machine is currently in the repair shop, but that doesn't really justify me looking at getting a newer one hehe, maybe when the Applecare expires :)
Click to expand...


Thank you for your info. Yes. My simulations are completely separate. Each of them is single thread. Perhaps we should compare the new MacPro with the Beowulf [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_(computing) ]
 
Hopefully these procs will go into xServes as well. Remember System X that Virginia Tech built a few years ago? I wonder how much faster it would be if they upgraded to xServes with i9s.
 
MacRumors said:
First figures indicate that this CPU is very promising. At equivalent clock speed, it is 50% faster than the corresponding quad core Xeon for parallel tasks. Despite having 50% more transistors, the CPU strongly benefits from 32-nm engraving as it drains 50% less power in idle mode and 10% less in full loading mode.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm not doubting those results but how much faster is it compared to a higher clocked quad-core?

Wikipedia lists one 2.4 GHz model.
 
Holy cow... 24 logical cores! Do you realize how fast I could render an animation with that amount of cores!? I currently have a 2-core machine right now...that would just be incredible for me.
 
Hopefully new displays will come along with the release of new Mac Pros...
 
Chaos123x said:
I hope they some models that feel like they are a good deal.

The 09 models never really felt right price to perfomance wise.

Hope we get something like the 08 pricing when we got the octocore for a steal.
Click to expand...

The Quad-Core was a VERY poor value from that start, let alone now. When I saw the specs and the price I thought one or the other was a misprint. A $2499 system with a $284 processor in it, only 4 memory sockets (and was only listed as upgradable to 8gb at introduction) and a video card that was barely a mid level card in 2008. They are making incredible margins on that one.

Hopefully the next gen will put the pricing better inline with the technology that is included, or considerably up the technology/features for that price.
 
But the problem/complaint is that there are no apps (ok, maybe we can all put our heads together and list 3) that truly take advantage of multi-core technology. Multi-core technology has been around for almost 5 years (I've owned a few quad-core PC systems since early 2007) and even today practically nothing takes advantage of it (BOINC is 1 app).

Not that all apps need multi-core coding (like a simple word processing program or slideshow)...but games, a/v editing/production, spreadsheet apps, photo editing, etc. could really see a huge performance increase if the apps were written to take really take advantage of multi-core technology.

Of course it all has to start with the OS, too, to allow the apps to be written in that manner.

-Eric
 
Looking at my tricked out, one year old 8 core Xeon Mac Pro I can only lament the passing of the days we could buy a CPU upgrade card for such a Mac from DayStar and their like. One of the beauties of a Mac with slots was exactly that. I'd gladly pay the $1,200 or so to upgrade the CPUs on a machine that set me back over $6K. Can the more technically inclined explain what happened that ended such upgrades?
 
Since this will be used in a fixed Apple form factor product, a 1 or 2 CPU chip tower, we can estimate its performance and price generally and plan accordingly.

What would be interesting indeed is if Apple added a new form factor. Some people "hope" for a mid-tower, a Core i9 taller Mac-Mini form factor, but I hope for a 12 CPU 3U blade box and a 4 CPU chip tower.

It's time for SSD+HD to be a standard feature on all shipping units.

Rocketman
 
okidoki said:
As a Photoshop user I am still waitng for Adobe to make use of more than 1 core - especially with opening and saving....

So I stick to my 2 year old 8 core Macpro that has never been used properly yet...
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on Adobe and their pathetic ways where Macs are concerned! I want Apple to move into the Photoshop arena as they did with Aperture. If they did I suspect Adobe would pull their finger out.
 
I don't know but something makes me feel that the difference between Notebook and Desktop performance is really wide right now. Actually, ever since processor manufacturers started adding extra cores to their chips.

I mean, look at the performance difference between the most powerful Mac and the 13" MBP. I bet it's quite a bit wider than what used to be in the G3/G4 era. And I don't know if that's a good thing. Devs get the extra work of making their stuff scalable to a variety of moderate to very-fast machines.

Also, MacIntel notebooks have not travelled really far from what they were when they were introduced 3.5 years ago.

Quad Core Mac Notebooks should alleviate the disparity. But then there's this Gulftown thing coming up.
 
hajime said:
I work on computer simulations. Anybody knowledgeable to answer the following?

Assuming that each computer simulation requires Y GB. The new MacPro should be able to run 24 different scenario of simulations. To make things run smoothly, it will require 24*Y GB. Am I right?

How the performance will be running the 24 different simulations on 24 single core computers (each with Y GB + required RAM for the OS) vs. that of a MacPro with (24*Y GB + required RAM for the OS)?
Click to expand...

You work on simulations and you can't answer this even empirically?

All things being equal ( same CPU speed, ram, etc ), 24 single cores are going to outperform a 4x6 system for classic cluster independent programs ( meaning there is no shared data, and no parallel code )

The 4x6 will use considerably less electricity, and take up less physical space.

If your program is written to actually take advantage of real parallel programming algorithms and/or requires large amounts of shared data between processes, the 4x6 system will come out on top by a mile.

And as it is with all things, far more important than the specs of your system is having efficient algorithms and properly tuned compiled code.
If you are lazy and write a O(n^3) time program, when you could have written the same thing as O(n log n ) , all the CPU cores in the world aren't going to help you.
 
ChrisA said:
The Applications that need it already do support multiple cores. For example Logic can us any number of cores. So can Compresser, Final Cut can even use processors that are on another Mac via the network.

And then Mac OS X itself runs many processes and each of these can be on it's own core.
Click to expand...

It's not so simple as that. It would be nice if OS X had offered a processor affinity, the scheduler just issues time slices out to the next processor that it chooses.

bruxelles said:
12 cores should not be considered massively multicore anymore. According to the following URL, Intel have stated that developers should start thinking about how they would develop for *thousands* of cores.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-9981760-64.html
Click to expand...

12 cores, 24 threads is a lot for a workstation. But your link suggest planning on *tens, hundreds, thousands*, not simply jumping to expect thousands. And not develop for right away, but start thinking about how to do it, laying in a road map.

I wonder what this power would be used for for the typical user. It's going to be there, but it's not necessary for writing documents or emails. I don't think the world needs more superfluous user interface effects. HD video plays just fine on existing hardware.

*LTD* said:
Apple had little choice, really. IBM/Freescale was dragging their feet for quite a while with processor releases, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Freescale and IBM really didn't have much of a market to sell to, and probably couldn't justify the cost of developing new generations of processors.

Digitalclips said:
Looking at my tricked out, one year old 8 core Xeon Mac Pro I can only lament the passing of the days we could buy a CPU upgrade card for such a Mac from DayStar and their like. One of the beauties of a Mac with slots was exactly that. I'd gladly pay the $1,200 or so to upgrade the CPUs on a machine that set me back over $6K. Can the more technically inclined explain what happened that ended such upgrades?
Click to expand...

There is some upgradability, but I think much of the real blame might go to Intel. Intel makes a new socket every other year (or faster), and they don't seem to support older sockets with new designs. This is different from the years of the PPC 60x bus, where newer processors could be adapted to machines with older processors, and Intel's Socket 7, which supported three different brands of processors for several years before becoming too obsolete to support.

Which isn't to say that Apple isn't guilty, it wasn't easy or cheap to get an upgrade for a G5 from Apple, and I don't think any third parties had one.
 
Ha! Wow... a Mac Pro rumor? What, is it 2003 all over again?

I am reminded what a dramatic transformation Apple (and in turn, this site) has experienced over the last decade. I know many think Apple continues spiraling down the wrong path - doomed to crumble because they no longer cater to the $4k "power" user. But if this decade has taught us anything, it' that there is a much larger, long term & viable market for the everyday computer user than the über niche market Apple historically targeted/catered.
Adapt or die - and Apple adapted.
While I have not agreed with every step of the transformation, it really is good to see Apple climb out of the niche and become a more important player on a global scale. I think their philosophies & approach too important to stay as niche as they once were. Besides, I think both power users & consumers can exists under one umbrella.

That said, it is nice to see some news/rumor on the Mac Pro front.

What a decade...
 
Marx55 said:
Headless Mac mini TOWER much needed. With new MATTE Apple Cinema Displays.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no need for a headless Mac mini tower, nor a matte Cinema Display ( I already have one ;))

Moral of the story is: speak for yourself. Apple seems to be doing just fine without headless towers, matte displays, netbooks, and smartphones with "real" keyboards.
 
...

Wouldn't it be sweet if the tablet could run iPhone os on it's own or be used as an input device and display for your is x computer via wifi (or even better lte). I wonder how much bandwidth a screen with 1200x800 resolution would need to run over a network. Like having a cloud in your own home through a framework that is likely in place such as how you can access your mac through mobile me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back