Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pre-Release PowerMac/XServe Replacement CPU Benchmarks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Yes, my mini-tower
Woodcrest will be too expensive - so instead of a crippled entry maxi-tower PowerMac (or whatever it's called) there will be a mini-tower.
I also expect to see this in a dual-purpose DVD player sized case.
For the home theatre - the Mac Media Centre Edition - place it horizontally under the TiVo and DVD player and other home entertainment components.
Pack a little foot in the box to attach for vertical mini-tower use.
I've been saying that the new Conroe mini-tower/pizza-box is a certainty.aswitcher said:
Woodcrest will be too expensive - so instead of a crippled entry maxi-tower PowerMac (or whatever it's called) there will be a mini-tower.
I also expect to see this in a dual-purpose DVD player sized case.
For the home theatre - the Mac Media Centre Edition - place it horizontally under the TiVo and DVD player and other home entertainment components.
Pack a little foot in the box to attach for vertical mini-tower use.
eric67
macrumors 6502
Mac Pro, do you really think so??
WoodCrest will power the Mac Pro, many reasons for this statement:
- Apple needs to replace the current quad core G5 by a machine at least equivalent, a Conroe Core 2 (single CPU 2 cores) will not be sufficient to match performance of the current Quad G5.
- In the past Apple has used hte same CPU in the Xserve and in the PowerMac, so the Xserve will be powered by hte Woddcrest, as the Mac Pro
- A Xeon WoodCrest Mac Pro could debut at 2x dual core Xeon 3GHz, making it a 4 cores computer.
- apple will not divesify too much the different types of CPU to be used in its hardware models: Core 2 is pin compatible with Core, but will feature larger cache and higher FSB clockspeed. Core 2 Merom will be in the MB Pro revision in Septembre while the iMac might quickly move to Core 2 Conroe. Xeon will power Xserve and Mac Pro.
for additional information/tidbits, please read:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-05-16/#5499
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-05-24/#5529
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-05-02/#5439
early January 2006: Apple roadmap analysis http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-01-23/#5046
while the other predictions regarding Core and Core2 are quite obvious, and should happen in August or September, I think regarding the Mac Pro, I strongly disagree.jiggie2g said:
WoodCrest will power the Mac Pro, many reasons for this statement:
- Apple needs to replace the current quad core G5 by a machine at least equivalent, a Conroe Core 2 (single CPU 2 cores) will not be sufficient to match performance of the current Quad G5.
- In the past Apple has used hte same CPU in the Xserve and in the PowerMac, so the Xserve will be powered by hte Woddcrest, as the Mac Pro
- A Xeon WoodCrest Mac Pro could debut at 2x dual core Xeon 3GHz, making it a 4 cores computer.
- apple will not divesify too much the different types of CPU to be used in its hardware models: Core 2 is pin compatible with Core, but will feature larger cache and higher FSB clockspeed. Core 2 Merom will be in the MB Pro revision in Septembre while the iMac might quickly move to Core 2 Conroe. Xeon will power Xserve and Mac Pro.
for additional information/tidbits, please read:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-05-16/#5499
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-05-24/#5529
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-05-02/#5439
early January 2006: Apple roadmap analysis http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-01-23/#5046
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Conroe will be significantly faster than Merom, which is significantly faster than the Yonah in the iMacIntel.aswitcher said:
Conroe will run at faster clock rates than Merom, and will have a 1066 MHz FSB compared to 667 MHz in Merom. There will also be an Extreme version at even faster clocks.
There are many reports that the MB/iMacIntel/MBP are neck-to-neck with the dual core PowerMacs in many cases.
Merom and Conroe should be even faster - probably beating the dual-core PMG5 on everything except highly optimized AltiVec code. They may even beat the G5 at AltiVec, since Core 2 has a much improved SSE with multiple SSE execution units.
In other words, that sleek DVD-player sized pizza-box would be more than a match for the low-end PM.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Intel has historically charged quite a bit more both for Xeon processors and Xeon chipsets to support them. A Woodcrest PM would need to be about $500 to $800 more than a PM to preserve Apple's margins. (Woodcrest also uses a new kind of memory called FB-DIMMs - and most people realize that it will take a while for the price to drop to the levels of DDR2 memory.)aswitcher said:
Can they afford not to?aswitcher said:
There's a huge price, size and feature gap between the MiniMacIntel and the PowerMac. All the other Intel vendors will have dual-core 64-bit Conroe mini-towers in the $800-$1200 range.
Will Apple get many switchers when the choice is between a Mini and a Maxi for a couple thousand? (especially if the Mini stays 32-bit Yonah...)
You can get DVD-player sized minitowers and pizza boxes with dual-core Pentium 4 today.aswitcher said:
It is *much* easier to cool a home-stereo sized box than a thin laptop....
Or even smaller
http://www.stealthcomputer.com/littlepc_p4_401X.htm
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Wikipedia says that Conroe will be released on 23 July.iRepublican said:
How convenient that WWDC'07 is soon after... 😎
aswitcher
macrumors 603
AidenShaw said:
It all makes sense and the chips appear to be timing right for such a release...but this is Apple and they at times tend to defy the obvious choice for their own marketing reasons. Anyway, I hope you are right because this really would be a great machine for my home server for the next 4-5 years if they can bring it out under the current PM costs. Even a basic speced out entry level PM with ram and a few minor upgrades is $4500 AUD...and I dont want to spend more than $2K-$3K, which is why a second rev intel iMac is my current choice...but I dont need the iMacs screen really.
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
aswitcher said:
Depends on the Task. Like Aidenshaw said, Conroe is going to be quite a bit faster since it is built for the desktop environment. Like the current Core Duo Macs, they are going to be quite a bit faster than PPC macs in most tasks. Notice I said most. SSE3 is in no way, shape, or form the equal of Altivec. A few highend professional programs desiged specifially for the strengths of PPC970 series are going to run slower on Intel Macs.
Keep the Power Down
The reason for going with the Intel CPUs was to cut power usuage. The iMac is basically a modified laptop that only runs from AC power. Thus the need for a lower powered chip. But as others have mentioned, if the heat can be kept down, then the Conroe could be used.
Currently the iMac cpu was downgraded from a server class cpu to a prtable class cpu. Only time will tell if the iMac makes it back to the desktop class.
Bill the TaxMan
JurgenWigg said:
The reason for going with the Intel CPUs was to cut power usuage. The iMac is basically a modified laptop that only runs from AC power. Thus the need for a lower powered chip. But as others have mentioned, if the heat can be kept down, then the Conroe could be used.
Currently the iMac cpu was downgraded from a server class cpu to a prtable class cpu. Only time will tell if the iMac makes it back to the desktop class.
Bill the TaxMan
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
You should look closer at the Core 2
The "problem" with SSE is not that the SSE instruction architecture is inherently weaker than AltiVec.
The problem has been that the SSE implementations did not have the dedicated vector arithmetic units that the PPC chips have had.
That changes with Core 2 - there are three dedicated 128-bit execution units, which allow a core to do up to 8 single precision floating point operations per cycle (or 4 doubles).
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/core-architecture-0306.htm
The days of "AltiVec good - SSE bad" are over.
While I agree that hand-optimized AltiVec on the PMG5 will probably keep up with generic SSE on Core 2, I wouldn't be surprised that once similar SSE optimizations are made Intel chips will prevail even there.BenRoethig said:
The "problem" with SSE is not that the SSE instruction architecture is inherently weaker than AltiVec.
The problem has been that the SSE implementations did not have the dedicated vector arithmetic units that the PPC chips have had.
That changes with Core 2 - there are three dedicated 128-bit execution units, which allow a core to do up to 8 single precision floating point operations per cycle (or 4 doubles).
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/core-architecture-0306.htm
The days of "AltiVec good - SSE bad" are over.
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
heisetax said:
Having a chip supply and the fact that most programs are already optimized for x86 may have played a factor too.
jiggie2g
macrumors 6502
eric67 said:
Another reason not to trust the French..lol , this guys at Hard Mac is a moron
He calls the Merom less powerful but someone for got to tell him that it is the same freakin' core as Conroe. Please explain to me why everyone keeps thinking or wanting a conroe in a iMac , this will not happen , for apple to do this it would have to overhaul the iternals of the entire case and it would run too hot , remember the iMac G5 running at a lower FBS for heat reasons. If you are Apple why would u spend millions of dollars revamping the case and design when a simple chip swap to merom will do the same. Merom is most test sees no performance hit vs. conroe even will the reduced FSB. as for woodcrest it may be in the high end Mac Pro only , for Apple to use woodcrest in the whole pro line would be a wast as Woodcrest is more expensive then Conroe and has no advantade in single cpu configurations.
I will stick to my guns on this one.
MacMini / Core 1 Duo 1.86-2.0ghz 2MB L2
Macbook / Core 1 Duo 2.16-2.33ghz 2MB L2
iMac / Core 2 Duo(merom) 2.16-2.33ghz 4MB L2
Macbook Pro / Core 2 Duo(merom) 2.1-2.33ghz 4MB L2
MacPro / Core 2 Duo(Conroe) 2.4-2.67 and 2.93ghz XE 4MB L2(this may vary)
MacPro Quad (Woodcrest) 2x 3.0ghz / 2x 4MB L2
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
jiggie2g said:
I'm hoping they're all woodcrest with a dual socket 5000x chipset for upgrade reasons. However, the top machine would make a very good prosumer Mac.
jiggie2g
macrumors 6502
BenRoethig said:
Apple will not put out 3 Quads , did not do it with the G5 (when the chips were actually cheaper). It is simply not cost effective for Apple. Unless you are willing to pay a starting Price of $2499 , $2899 , $3299 that would very well be the price of 3 Quads. Those Dual socket Motherboards cost atleast $499USD. Personally I am waiting for the ATI RD600+RS600 chipset or I may settle on the Intel 975X depending on release dates. Conroe E6600(2.4ghz) OC'd to 3.6ghz 😀. I can't wait till July.
Also consider that Kentsfield (Intel Quad Core) will be out 1QT 2007 just in time for Macworld SF so it would be good timing to ship by mid Feb. So I would see a 2nd Gen MacPro being 2 Quad Core Models with a Dual Quad.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Some of you gals just don't get it !!
Kentsfield is the quad-core follow-on to Conroe, therefore you'll see it in Aiden's new quad-core MiniTower/media-centre-pizza-box. (Yes! A quad-core media centre - transcode anything to anything in real time!)
Clovertown is the quad-core follow-on to Woodcrest, therefore you'll see it in the maxi-tower octo-core (dual socket quad core) PM (or whatever the Lord God Jobs calls it) line.
But keep dreaming about Tigerton, the Tulsa follow-on. That will be the hexadecimal Mac - 16 cores. (4 cores per chip, 4 sockets per motherboard)
Some of you gals just aren't recognizing the pattern here, are you? There's multi-core single socket mobile/low-power (Merom), there's multi-core single socket desktop (Conroe), there's multi-core dual-socket workstation/server (Woodcrest), and there's multi-core multi-socket server (Tulsa).jiggie2g said:
Kentsfield is the quad-core follow-on to Conroe, therefore you'll see it in Aiden's new quad-core MiniTower/media-centre-pizza-box. (Yes! A quad-core media centre - transcode anything to anything in real time!)
Clovertown is the quad-core follow-on to Woodcrest, therefore you'll see it in the maxi-tower octo-core (dual socket quad core) PM (or whatever the Lord God Jobs calls it) line.
But keep dreaming about Tigerton, the Tulsa follow-on. That will be the hexadecimal Mac - 16 cores. (4 cores per chip, 4 sockets per motherboard)
I Deffinatly think that their will be multiple versions of the MacPro as well as an updated iMac. Intel Conroe processor is very fast, affordable, and still run very cool. According to Intel, Conroe is approx 40% faster than Yonah (Current Core Duo) at the same clock speed. While Merom is only 20% Faster than Yonah.
Meroms Will probly be put in Mac Mini's, and All the Notebooks. It makes sense.
The Updated iMacs will probably have a 1.8GHz - 2.2GHz Conroe Processor. They run cool enough still, while offering superior performance over the current core duo's.
We will Probably 3 versions of the MacPro (like this was for the G5)
We will have a Single Conroe 2.4GHz - 2.6GHz as our entry level Mac Pro.
We will have a Single Conroe XE 2.93GHz for our High End Mac Pro.
And a Dual Socketted - Dual Woodcrest 3GHz Workstation. This will be the most powerful of the bunch, and alot more expensive. This way, people who have a Quad G5 can use this as a replacement. Sure, One Dual Core Conroe probly will beat a Quad G5 in most things, applications which are heavly multithreaded and thrive off multiple cores still may be better on a Quad G5. Apple already is using 4 cores... I dont see why their highest end machine, wouldnt have at least 4 cores. Since Conroe is not dual socket capable, Their only choice is to use woodcrest. Which is fine, woodcrest is going to be superior to Conroe due to the fact that the FSB is increased from 1066 to 1333 and you can have More than one physical chip, as well with more ram.
I reckon that a Dual - Dual Core Woodcrest @ 3GHz / 1333FSB and 4GB of FBDIMM might costs us $4000. But thats ok 🙂
Meroms Will probly be put in Mac Mini's, and All the Notebooks. It makes sense.
The Updated iMacs will probably have a 1.8GHz - 2.2GHz Conroe Processor. They run cool enough still, while offering superior performance over the current core duo's.
We will Probably 3 versions of the MacPro (like this was for the G5)
We will have a Single Conroe 2.4GHz - 2.6GHz as our entry level Mac Pro.
We will have a Single Conroe XE 2.93GHz for our High End Mac Pro.
And a Dual Socketted - Dual Woodcrest 3GHz Workstation. This will be the most powerful of the bunch, and alot more expensive. This way, people who have a Quad G5 can use this as a replacement. Sure, One Dual Core Conroe probly will beat a Quad G5 in most things, applications which are heavly multithreaded and thrive off multiple cores still may be better on a Quad G5. Apple already is using 4 cores... I dont see why their highest end machine, wouldnt have at least 4 cores. Since Conroe is not dual socket capable, Their only choice is to use woodcrest. Which is fine, woodcrest is going to be superior to Conroe due to the fact that the FSB is increased from 1066 to 1333 and you can have More than one physical chip, as well with more ram.
I reckon that a Dual - Dual Core Woodcrest @ 3GHz / 1333FSB and 4GB of FBDIMM might costs us $4000. But thats ok 🙂
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Note that the Conroe is a completely different motherboard and chipset from the Woodcrest. And it's a cheaper CPU and chipset.iBunny said:
Apple will need to fill the hole between the mini and the maxi-tower, especially since Woodcrest will probably push the price of the maxi-tower up $500 or more.
(insert Aiden's standard "there will be a 64-bit dual-core Conroe Mini-tower/Pizza-box" claim here)
Possible, but a Conroe iMac would need a new motherboard, and larger power supply and fans. Merom is a drop-in, and cooler.iBunny said:
I don't picture a noisy iMac coming out.
One big advantage of FB-DIMMs is that more memory slots are possible. Note the following from a Dell workstation order menu:iBunny said:
o 64GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (16 DIMMS) [add $49,500]
o 32GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (8 DIMMS) [add $26,500]
o 32GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (16 DIMMS) [add $5,500]
o 16GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS) [add $14,500]
o 16GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (8 DIMMS) [add $2,650]
o 8GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS) [add $1,150]
o 8GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (8 DIMMS) [add $1,200]
o 4GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS) [add $400]
o 2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS) [Included in Price]
o 32GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (8 DIMMS) [add $26,500]
o 32GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (16 DIMMS) [add $5,500]
o 16GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS) [add $14,500]
o 16GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (8 DIMMS) [add $2,650]
o 8GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS) [add $1,150]
o 8GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (8 DIMMS) [add $1,200]
o 4GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS) [add $400]
o 2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 533MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS) [Included in Price]
(For a 1066 MHz bus, you run pairs of 533 MHz FB-DIMMs.)
BTW, that Dell "Precision Workstation 690" maxi-tower (about PMG5-sized) configured with
o Dual dual-core 3.73 GHz Xeons
o 4 GiB FB-DIMM
o 500 GB SATA drive
o 128 MiB Quadro FX550 dual DVI
o 4 GiB FB-DIMM
o 500 GB SATA drive
o 128 MiB Quadro FX550 dual DVI
is $5608.
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
AidenShaw said:
According to Apple, an iMac is good enough...acording to Apple. If you're going to have a pizza box, which basically is an iMac, it is.
jiggie2g
macrumors 6502
iBunny said:
I agree with you on the Power Mac part but I think u are confused about the Meroms performance.
Conroe is not 40% faster than Core Duo it is 20%. As Merom and Woodcrest are because they are the same core(i don't know how many time i've explained this). When intel said 40% they ment Conroe will be 40% faster then the P4(which sucks) and Merom will be 20% faster then Core Duo(yonah) which is are bout the same edge Conroe has over AMD 64(20%). Intel only compared Merom to Yonah because they are both Mobile chips and merom is the replacement for yonah.
Yonah = AMD 64 in terms of performance
Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest > AMD 64/Yonah by 20%
As far as the Bus is concerned many benchmarks and have already proven that Conroe/Merom are Equal in terms of performance , both over clock similary and Merom is not bandwidth starved by the reduced FSB. They all seem to perform within 3-5% of one another depending on apps. 1333 FSB will only be necessary when going very high on clock speed well over 3ghz or Multi- CPU/Quadcore.
The woodcrest 1333 chipset is not truely 1333. it's a dual 667. the 2 cpu's, which is what woodcrest is meant for, will both have their own 667 bus, so no sharing, but not high speed either. it's that way for reliability