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

Power Efficient Quad-Core Xeons

I could also see these in an iMac and possibly the Macbook Pro. Anyone know how the power requirements compare to the C2D chips in the MBP and these new procs?

The only thing I worry about is not very much software is optimized for multi-core procs, much less 4 of them. Now that it looks like almost every computer out there has multi-cores, software makers need to start writing software to take advantage of them.
 
Macbook Pro Quad!

bigandy said:
sod that, quad core macbook pro. fine for me :D
Click to expand...

I agree with you Bigandy, the potential here is for the Macbook Pro. This would create a nice delineation of product lines between it and the macbook. There are rumours that macbook might get a dedicated graphics card in the next revision, so this might keep the Macbook Pro commercially viable.
 
pgwalsh said:
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?
Click to expand...

The recent process improvement Intel implemented extended it for one more generation. To some degree it is aleady being achieved by core number, not sheer technology improvement. We are nearing the limit of physics with the currenty silicon technology. Other technologies "promise" to keep Moore's law alive into perhaps the next decade or so, but nothing "real" yet.

What I find amazing is how long it has remained valid ALREADY.

Rocketman
 
frank781 said:
I agree with you Bigandy, the potential here is for the Macbook Pro. This would create a nice delineation of product lines between it and the macbook. There are rumours that macbook might get a dedicated graphics card in the next revision, so this might keep the Macbook Pro commercially viable.
Click to expand...

that would mean a 1.86GHz quadcore replaces a 2.33GHz dual core? seems unlikely to me because the quad core would need as much power as the dual core and would not be that much faster. and it would be a marketing problem to sell a lower clockspeed.

more likely to me is that they use higher clockspeed C2D and santa rosa chipsets to separate the lines for the near term future.
 
I think this new processor from Intel was designed to compete with this from Sun:: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/ But even with Intel's new chip Sun is still winning the the low power race

Very few Mac users would want these kinds of processors. The slower quad core chips, like the Sun T1 are perfect for building a high end web server or possibly a large DBMS server For desktop use the current faster dual core chips are faster for most uses. Web servers tend to run many copies of the web server process (one per client) many DBMSes work the same way each of these can run hundreds of processes and the 32 thread per chip T1 is perfect for this.

The one case were these chips would be better on a Mac is for people who start a large batch job (to trans-code media files) and then walk away. Very few mac users do this. Most Macs are used interactively.
 
guzhogi said:
I could also see these in an iMac and possibly the Macbook Pro. Anyone know how the power requirements compare to the C2D chips in the MBP and these new procs?

The only thing I worry about is not very much software is optimized for multi-core procs, much less 4 of them. Now that it looks like almost every computer out there has multi-cores, software makers need to start writing software to take advantage of them.
Click to expand...

Computers don't run just one program. They run an OS that manages many of them. Updating the screen, reading data from the Internet and flushing data to disks, streaming data to the new Apple TV. All this goes on at once. The OS manages it well.

Also, applications that follows Apple's guidlines call a set of core services for do things with audio, video or to do a search or just about anyhting. These core services are written to take advantage of the hardware. Software not taking advantage of multiple processors is a myth. You can see for yourself just by watching Activity Monitor

There have been computers with multiple core now for what? 35 years? Maybe longer. They have been common for maybe 20 years and just now becoming common on consumer desktop systems. The software and theory on how to use mutliple processers is quite mature, Mac OS is really just BSD UNIX and BSD has been handling multiple processors for decades.

I remember using a BSD derived system that have two CPUs and right next to my big 20" CRT was my little "512K Mac" The Mac didn't even have a hard drive, just a floppy and a half megabyte of RAM. So I hade one system that was very much like Mac OS X for "real work" and the Mac for word processing and diagrams. I though even then that some one should mix these two systems together. Finally someonme at Next Inc. did. Point is that the software to use these multi-cores is quite mature.
 
Maybe, but maybe not

These chips have a much lower speed than the current dual Xeon, not many programs can take over all 8 cores (today), anyway.

I bet they (APPL) will wait for equal or faster raw GhZ, but it could go into something else (single CPU box) like the iMac with one quad CPU at 1.6 or 1.8 Ghz, the heat is about right.

:rolleyes:
 
I Wonder If These Would Go Into Quad Minis Or iMacs

Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

Bring on the Mac Pro 8 Cores Apple!
rotfl.gif
 
MacBook Pro Quad Cores!!

Well not right away but I can certainly see MacBook Pros with Quad cores in the near future. :D
 
Multimedia said:
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

Bring on the Mac Pro 8 Cores Apple!
rotfl.gif
Click to expand...

Multimedia Aren't you going to say something about Stokley-Seaburg? :)
 
i doubt they'd put a xeon chip in an imac or a mac mini. but when i read this, i thought about last week's thread about whether we'd buy a midrange tower. personally, i doubt these chips will make it into any mac, but it would be interesting to see.
 
ChrisA said:
I think this new processor from Intel was designed to compete with this from Sun:: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/ But even with Intel's new chip Sun is still winning the the low power race

Very few Mac users would want these kinds of processors. The slower quad core chips, like the Sun T1 are perfect for building a high end web server or possibly a large DBMS server For desktop use the current faster dual core chips are faster for most uses. Web servers tend to run many copies of the web server process (one per client) many DBMSes work the same way each of these can run hundreds of processes and the 32 thread per chip T1 is perfect for this.
Click to expand...


These processors are quite slow such that the performance per watt isn't really there for most things. If you benchmark it for databases and other apps that can exercise all 32 threads/8 cores you will find that a conventional 2x2 Intel or AMD rig will run rings around it such that it is not obvious why you would want to use it. Even when running 100 threads the Intel and AMD cores are capable of getting a lot more work done faster with no hardware thread support.
 
Bear said:
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".
Click to expand...

I was wondering if anyone else caught that. In fact, "efficient" is the wrong word to use altogether. If performance per watt is equal, there is nothing more efficient about the lower clock speeds

In fact, as someone else noted, since not all software is multi-threaded, the 3GHz actually has a distinct advantage of being able to do more. So in reality, the smaller clock-speeds might actually be less efficient.

Chew on that one...

-Clive
 
Not in a Macbook Pro, current Merom processors (C2D) use around 34 or 35w, this one uses 50w. So it would consume more power and would drain the battery much faster.

I'm not saying it's going to be slower, but there's not much to market for Apple to the average-joe as the GHz's are lower and the battery life also is going to be less.
 
Multimedia said:
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.
Click to expand...

No no no... don't mess with the mini. Keep it as a cheap, small, switcher machine (or media hub for some). Any means to bring down the price and still keep it a quality computer would be an investment well-made.

I know Apple has historically been very hesitant about it, but a mini-tower would make a lot of people very happy (and shut a bunch of others up, finally). Let's hope for that.

-Clive
 
DrGruv1 said:
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...
Click to expand...

That would have to be a very large iMac, well over 30 inches. The 5000x is available only as a dual socket workstation motherboard with FB-DIMM memory. Unlike U3 and U4 used by the G5, it doesn't come in general single socket or consumer variants. That's what the 965G/P and 975x motherboards (and in Apple's case 945 mobile) and the Core 2 Duo are for.
 
Multimedia said:
Due to their lower speed, I guess they'll be rulled out of the running for iMacs. But if they're cool enough for the miini enclosure and the ram they want isn't too expensive, then maybe a super mini could evolve with them next year after their price goes down.

Bring on the Mac Pro 8 Cores Apple!
rotfl.gif
Click to expand...

They're ruled out because there is no such thing as a single socket Xeon solution anymore.
 
30 inch imac ...

BenRoethig said:
That would have to be a very large iMac, well over 30 inches. The 5000x is available only as a dual socket workstation motherboard with FB-DIMM memory. Unlike U3 and U4 used by the G5, it doesn't come in general single socket or consumer variants. That's what the 965G/P and 975x motherboards (and in Apple's case 945 mobile) and the Core 2 Duo are for.
Click to expand...



Well if that's what it takes, i wouldn't mind seeing an real fast 30inch imac, out goes my and vcr/dvd set up and in(to my living room)comes the 30 inch iMac ;-). That is if its affordable of course, meaning around the price of the 24 inch now.
 
Data said:
Well if that's what it takes, i wouldn't mind seeing an real fast 30inch imac, out goes my and vcr/dvd set up and in(to my living room)comes the 30 inch iMac ;-). That is if its affordable of course, meaning around the price of the 24 inch now.
Click to expand...

Come on, we're Mac users. $3500 isn't all that much for a computer.
 
pgwalsh said:
This is starting to look like a hiccup in Moore's law or is that officially dead?
Click to expand...

Moore's law is nothing to do with processor speed, or computing power. It's a prediction of the increasing number of transistors on a chip per unit cost (dollars or euros or whatever).

With the Core2Duos, Moor's law is still going strong, as basically $300 buys you double the number of transistors on your processor than it did a couple of years ago.

Intel plans to take that up to 50 cores per chip, so Moore's law is safe for a good few more years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law
 
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