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.
Quad-Core Intels (Kentsfield) in Q1 2007?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OMG FASTER CPUZ!!!
That's amazing for all the pros who need em for rendering, but for EVERYONE else, why in the world would you want it? I have a G4 that plays my iTunes music just as fast as a quad-core "G6" powermac could. It connects to my DSL line just as fast as a quad-core dual CPU powermac could, and it uses a LOT less electricity.
I can't wait for the dual core GPU's!
That's amazing for all the pros who need em for rendering, but for EVERYONE else, why in the world would you want it? I have a G4 that plays my iTunes music just as fast as a quad-core "G6" powermac could. It connects to my DSL line just as fast as a quad-core dual CPU powermac could, and it uses a LOT less electricity.
I can't wait for the dual core GPU's!
I forgot:
Kingsly said:Yes! This will further accent the awesome power of the, dare I say it, "MacPro Octo"
2x Intel Core Quad running at 4ghz each core
500GB (upgradable to 1TB) HDD connected via internal Fibre Channel
4x ATI X2800 GPU's (each capible of processing 8 trillion triangles per second) with 1GB VRAM each
PCIi (PCI insane) up to 8gbps data transfer rates
4ghz FSB
1GB L2 cache per core
8GB 1ghz DDR3 SDRAM (PC2-9000) expandable to 16GB
SmartCool system immerses the processing core, GPU's, and power supply in Liquid Helium: keeping the computer running at a brisk -425°F
$4999
Purchase with the all new Integrated sensing Apple Cinema display (30" or 42") and save $999
*Warning* MacPro Octo requires 240VAC 14kW. Please contact your local electricity provider for more information about installing a dedicated power line. If you wish, you can purchase a Tabletop Nuclear Fusion device for an additional $499. SmartCool system must be purged by an Apple certified technician every 18 months. Fur lined Jacket, hat, and gloves not included. Apple holds no responsibility for frostbite or severe burns.
Well, I can definitely tell the difference between my revA G5 and my previous Quicksilver. For example, I'm able to type nearly twice as fast on the G5.
Bring on the quad TowerMac!
Bring on the quad TowerMac!
thejadedmonkey said:OMG FASTER CPUZ!!!
That's amazing for all the pros who need em for rendering, but for EVERYONE else, why in the world would you want it? I have a G4 that plays my iTunes music just as fast as a quad-core "G6" powermac could. It connects to my DSL line just as fast as a quad-core dual CPU powermac could, and it uses a LOT less electricity.
I can't wait for the dual core GPU's!
Here's the cooling system
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4261827163265447245&q=5ghz&pl=true
Oh yea....I can make this at home.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4261827163265447245&q=5ghz&pl=true
Oh yea....I can make this at home.
Chundles said:
yeah, five years down the line we'll have these things in our phones, we'll be using 32-core processors, and everyone will have a flying car built on to their back.
and a third arm with a pint glass instead of a hand, for ease of drinking at the local.
p0intblank said:A quad-core CPU... talk about power!
Yeah, I remember when the P-90s came out and I had to rewrite all the timing loops in my QuickBASIC programs which I had coded on a 386 to compensate for the amazing power in those new machines...
Seems consistent with Intel's roadmap that's been linked to on other threads. Whether or not they make it into the PowerMacs that soon remains to be seen.
The most exciting part of Intel's roadmap, though, is that they're predicting 8-core chips by 2010-2011 in the 10-12GHz speeds, IIRC. That's a lot of horsepower.
If anything, it's nice to dream about.
The most exciting part of Intel's roadmap, though, is that they're predicting 8-core chips by 2010-2011 in the 10-12GHz speeds, IIRC. That's a lot of horsepower.
If anything, it's nice to dream about.
Problemo....
Most here realize that it will be most difficult to get any more productivity and performance out of an 8-way processor system versus a 4-way, and at times, even a 2-way system...right?
Unless you are running large web servers, Databases, and specific ( usually scientific ) applications designed to take advantage of that many procs, you will be just giving Steve a nice Christmas bonus, and tossing good money away that could be used for apps.
Max.
Most here realize that it will be most difficult to get any more productivity and performance out of an 8-way processor system versus a 4-way, and at times, even a 2-way system...right?
Unless you are running large web servers, Databases, and specific ( usually scientific ) applications designed to take advantage of that many procs, you will be just giving Steve a nice Christmas bonus, and tossing good money away that could be used for apps.
Max.
bigandy said:yeah, five years down the line we'll have these things in our phones, we'll be using 32-core processors, and everyone will have a flying car built on to their back.
and a third arm with a pint glass instead of a hand, for ease of drinking at the local.
looking forward to that last one. especially if it comes with free seconds.
budpam said:
You are completely incorrect. Conroe is based off Merom, and is the 64-bit desktop version of Merom. Read the article which started this whole thread. It states that Conroe is 64-bit. I can provide other sources as well.
maxvamp said:
It's not about getting more performance out of any one application, it's about being able to run more high-CPU applications at once.
And, of course, having the best computer in town.
(That said, I occasionally work with Photoshop files that take 3+ minutes to open, so raw processing power would be nice...)
generik said:The mistake you made is hardware cannot be duplicated infinitely at zero extra cost
Money on hardware is never wasted. Each dollar you spend on apps however is of questionable value.
Hardware / Software you spend money on but don't use turns into wasted money...
Max.
Even if they do debut Quad or New Duo Core in the Pro-Line, it's rather pointless being that most of the pro app's aren't available yet. Best bet is Q1 2007. Which might buy some of the developers time to catch up. Especially, Adobe.
~e
~e
It's true that there may come a point at which the everyday user won't notice the difference as the Intel processors develop. If the fact that folks are still using the original iMacs pretty much fine, one could even say that we've reached one of these points for folks who check email, surf the Web, and use Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Quicken. However, the underlying assumption (and what will hopefully be true) is that professional applications will be compiled to take full advantage of multiple processor cores. So, there could be a huge difference in horsepower for folks doing audio, video and graphics work.maxvamp said:
FoxyKaye said:
Even still, There are reports from the field where people, using the Pro apps, are having a problem using the full power of the 4-way systems.
Even I have run into this problem to some extent with my Quad G5, but for me a 4-way system is still worth it, since I can flood a 2-way system with ease.
Max.