Power Efficient Quad-Core Xeons

[MacRumors]

Macworld notes that Intel is officially announcing the availability of more power-efficient quad-core Xeon processors to be available today.

The new Xeon L5320 and L5310 processors consume only 12.5 watts of electricity per core, using 35-60% less power than the existing quad-core Xeons.

The L5320 operates at 1.86 GHz and the L5310 at 1.60 GHz. They both feature 8M bytes of on-die cache for faster memory data communication. In quantities of 1,000 units, the L5320 is priced at US$519 and the L5310 at $455.

No word on whether or not Apple is planning on using the newest Quad-core processors in upcoming Macs, despite persistent rumors of Apple introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro. These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

For readers interested in the top end of performance, Intel revealed last week that later this year, they will be releasing a higher end 3.0GHz version of its Quad-core Xeon for customers who aren't concerned with power consumption.

The current 2.66GHz Quad-cores or these upcoming high end chips appear to be the most likely candidates for future 8-Core Mac Pro models, as power consumption is not a major consideration for Apple's high end desktop machines.

 

[HelloKitty]

Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

 

[spicyapple]

I wet my Hoff™ pants. No seriously, this is extremely good news. It all fits in my master plan, muhahah.

 

[Chaszmyr]

Maybe we'll see Apple's Online Store update tomorrow... It sure seems like it's been a while.

 

[arn]

I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

Maybe the 3.0GHz version when it comes out later this year

arn

 

[Chaszmyr]

I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

Maybe the 3.0GHz version when it comes out later this year

arn

It is true 1.86ghz would be quite low relative to what is currently available in the Mac Pros. Do you think there would be any higher probability of a quad core iMac with these low power chips?

 

[bigandy]

Great!! Bring on the 8-Core Mac Pro!!!

sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me

 

[Teh Don Ditty]

Mmmmmmm 8 core goodness!

Power efficient = goodness too!

Perhaps a power efficient chip could be used in a Mini Mac Pro.... Hey! I can dream!

 

[eXan]

The new Quad iMac?

Or is there a non-Xeon equevalent of 4-core CPU?

 

[DrGruv1]

It is true 1.86ghz would be quite low relative to what is currently available in the Mac Pros. Do you think there would be any higher probability of a quad core iMac with these low power chips?

my thought also...

wouldn't have to wait till the 4 core version in 2008 - could do it now if they wanted to change the imac to the macpro motherboard.....

Just A Guess...

 

[iJawn108]

mac cube pro

 

[Rocketman]

Before Multimedia chimes in, has the Stokley-Seaburg chipset been released yet?

Rocketman

 

[pgwalsh]

I don't see these power-efficient Quad cores being used in the Mac Pro.

Maybe the 3.0GHz version when it comes out later this year

arn

Right, I agree. Hopefully they can work some of that power efficiency into the 3.0 Ghz.

This is starting to look like a hiccup in Moore's law or is that officially dead?

 

[dude-x]

The new Quad iMac?

Or is there a non-Xeon equevalent of 4-core CPU?

The non Xeon 4 core is called codenmame Kentsfield, and it's sold under the name Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Intel Core 2 Extreme XQ6800 for the faster version. This is the desktop version of the chip.

I hope that by the time the Mac Pro gets a refresh, that they will introduce low power 2.66 GHz quad cores. 2.66 Ghz is the sweet spot for high performance and reasonable cost.

On February 27th, Yahoo News had a story about Intel's plans. Intel said that they would release the Seaburg chipset in the second half of '07. That means we can expect the new Mac Pros in June. I am hoping that Apple's special relationship with Intel will mean an earlier release date.

 

[the vj]

I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

 

[Teh Don Ditty]

I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

That my friend is business. Intel & AMD or in constant competition with each other, which brings about innovation.

I understand you feel that your MacBook is outdated already but that's the computer industry. Now that Apple ditched IBM and PPC, it is subject to the same trends as regular PCs.

 

[4np]

sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me

Just what I was hoping for when I read this According to eWeek these quad-core processor consume 50-Watt; what do the current Dual Core (merom) processors in the MacBook (Pro) lines consume? Also, note my post about recently rumored intel price drops!

Intel Unveils 50-Watt Quad-core Chips

Once again, Intel is ramping up its quad-core lineup.

This time, the world's largest chip maker is scheduled to unveil a pair of Xeon quad-core processors with 50-watt thermal envelopes. This represents a 60 percent decrease in power use from early chips that had 120 thermal watt envelopes and a 38 percent drop from 80-watt models.

The Santa Clara, Calif., company will officially unveil these two new "Clovertown" quad-core processors on March 12.

source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2102526,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

 

[QCassidy352]

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

macbook pro: 14 months, 2 versions
macbook: 10 months, 2 versions
mac pro: 6 months, 1 version
imac: 14 months, 2 versions
mac mini: 13 months, 2 versions

As far as intel goes in that time span, we've seen core duo, core 2 duo, dual core xeon, and quad core xeon.

Every other week...?

 

[andiwm2003]

I have a G5 quad 2.5 and as I always thought and said... it is so... slow specially when I was playing the other week with one of the new 15" Mac Book Pro. It was faster than my G5.

I hope intel realease chips twice a year only, they are coming with a new chip every other week and is frustrating as a costumer to feel that my so expensive Mac Book is already discontinued.

a MBP is faster than a G5 quad? hard to believe! what app did you test?

aside of that i hope that intel releases new chips frequently and by that bring about innovation. i would like to see updates to the macs every 3-4 month insted of every 6-8 month. this would also drive down the insanely high prices for used macs.

 

[brianus]

That my friend is business. Intel & AMD or in constant competition with each other, which brings about innovation.

I understand you feel that your MacBook is outdated already but that's the computer industry. Now that Apple ditched IBM and PPC, it is subject to the same trends as regular PCs.

It's such a weird sentiment, wanting things to slow down. I 'switched' in 2005, after many many months of wanting to switch but having no idea when the G5's would be replaced, and having no news out of IBM or Apple on that score. The announce of the Intel switch and the inevitability of rapid, predictable product updates that would bring was an enormous breath of fresh air -- it also prevented me from buying an expensive G5 that would be wayyyy obsolete compared to the Intels (a cheap Mini was fine as long as there were potentially Windows-compatible Intel Macs in the near future). An extremely sluggish, always incremental update schedule may give you more peace of mind in your purchase, and it may help Apple's bottom line by convincing people there's no sense waiting to buy, but ultimately stagnation is not good for the consumer. Just because a product hasn't been updated doesn't mean it's up to date.

And anyway, there have been only two updates since the Intel switch, Core and Core 2; and Core was always understood to be a stopgap, intermediate step. The updates to the processors and motherboards coming this year are of an incremental nature; the next real "G4->G5"-comparable update is in 2008, with Nehalem (or "Core 3", as I'd imagine it will be called).

 

[Teh Don Ditty]

<snip, post too long to requote>

Did you mean to quote me, or the poster that I quoted? I wouldn't want Intel (or AMD for that matter) to slow down anything.

 

[zero2dash]

These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

I'd rather have the faster processors.
Suck up the juice! Greenhouse gases! Kill the ozone! There's deadlines to be met! j/k

 

[pgwalsh]

I'd rather have the faster processors.
Suck up the juice! Greenhouse gases! Kill the ozone! There's deadlines to be met! j/k

Lovely.

 

[Bobthemonkey]

These low power chips are normally reserved for Blade centres where HVAC is a primary concern. Although unlikly,and updated version of the xserve cluster node running 4 or these but only 1 HDD would be quite fancy for certain applications where speed is less important than processor cycles such as some science programs.

 

[Bear]

In this case "Power Effcient" is marketing hype...

The new Xeon L5320 and L5310 processors consume only 12.5 watts of electricity per core, using 35-60% less power than the existing quad-core Xeons.
...
These new processors, however, feature a slower clock speed (1.60GHz, 1.86GHz) than the existing less power-efficient (2.66GHz) Clovertown Quad-core processors.

Did you notice that the relative power usage is similar to relative clock speed. In other words these "power efficient" processors are just marketing hype. Making something close in speed to the Clovertown processors while using noticeably less power would be "power efficient".

I'd rather have a dual 3.0GHz over a Quad 1.6 GHZ since not all applications scale well over multiple processors. So how much power does the dual core 3.0 GHz use in comparison to the Quad core 1.6 GHz? This would be a much closer comparison.