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

Upcoming 45nm Xeon Processors from Intel

MrCrowbar said:
Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 °C warmer, just when idling.
Click to expand...

However without programs designed for multi-core use, having four cores in a non-server environment at this time would not neccessarily equate to a real world gain in performance, hence why it's not the best idea for laptops at this time. It would certainly lead to some bragging rights, but probably not much else. Just google Core 2 Duo versus Core 2 Quad and you'll see that the Quad's don't blow the Dual's away unless the programs are designed to take advantage of multi-core.

I recall reading somewhere that the Penryn Core 2 Quad's will make there way into laptops, though into "desktop replacement models". Thus there must be a view that they will either use more power or produce more heat or both. I could see it as a possible CTO from Apple in the MacBook Pro's, but I'd bet that the base option on MacBooks with the new Penryn chips will still be the Core 2/3 Duo's, which will be faster, with more cache and a 800MHz or 1066MHz FSB.
 
So near, yet so far.

I'd be more keen on buying it if it had 1337 FSB.

(looks at server in corner which runs on 100MHZ FSB. Yes it's old, but it works fine.)
 
apple store aus is up. albeit we are normally the last to get anything.... wonder how long itl be down for. i bet its just maintainence, as it says... updates would have to be advertised!!!! wouldnt they>>?<<
 
mhar4 said:
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way: I can afford to buy a Mac with eight 3.0GHz cores. I am quite sure you can't afford any computer with four 6.0GHz POWER cores.

CalBoy said:
Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.
Click to expand...

Actually, an iPod shuffle has TWO ARM processors running at very low clock speed exactly for that reason, to save energy. Half the power of one chip running at twice the speed.
 
mhar4 said:
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?
Click to expand...

I don't want to see the notebook that this PPC chip will work in:eek:
 
power management

CalBoy said:
I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind.

A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core.

Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.
Click to expand...

This is really a non-issue - you (or the Apple engineers) simply set the power management options so that (by default) two of the cores are powered off when on battery.

You get all of quad core goodness when plugged in, and better battery life and cooler running than now if you're OK with dual-core when on battery.

This really is a "have your cake and eat it" situation.
 
samh004 said:
That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.
Click to expand...
I think the iMac will get the quad-core first and the MBP will get it after the next chipset is released next year. I agree that putting a quad-core in a MBP and a dual-core in a MB will separate the two lines even more, but I do not think Apple is too worried about putting a major gap in features between the MB and MBP. I see the MB getting a quad-core within a year after the MBP goes quad-core.

I guess this could be rated negative because the fastest quad-core right now is 3.0GHz and this update will only increase it by 160MHz (for each core), so it's not much compared to what it's at already.
Click to expand...
What will make these new quad-cores different is that each core will have its own direct connection to the chipset instead of 2 dual-cores on one die sharing a connection. It is not really a raw speed improvement, but a more efficient design that will consume less power and run cooler.
 
now more than ever - the minitower

Thomas2006 said:
I think the iMac will get the quad-core first and the MBP will get it after the next chipset is released next year.
Click to expand...

Keep the notebook chips in the iMac (for heat reasons), and put quads and some modest expandability (2 or 3 hard drives, 2nd optical, standard x16 PCIe graphics slot and additional x4 (in x8) PCIe slot) in a minitower.

Apple can separate the lines by expandability and number of cores, no need to worry about a problem with single core speeds not lining up.

iMac - 2 core, 4 GiB max, no easy expandability
Mac (minitower) - 4 core, 8 GiB max, some expandability
MacPro - 8 core, 32 GiB max, most expandable
 
mhar4 said:
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?
Click to expand...

You're right. Apple's Intel-based products are so bad, they can't even give them away.:rolleyes:

AidenShaw said:
Keep the notebook chips in the iMac (for heat reasons), and put quads and some modest expandability (2 or 3 hard drives, 2nd optical, standard x16 PCIe graphics slot and additional x4 (in x8) PCIe slot) in a minitower.

Apple can separate the lines by expandability and number of cores, no need to worry about a problem with single core speeds not lining up.

iMac - 2 core, 4 GiB max, no easy expandability
Mac (minitower) - 4 core, 8 GiB max, some expandability
MacPro - 8 core, 32 GiB max, most expandable
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I love my Apple gear, but I feel like I'm caught in Goldie Locks and the Three Bears. The MacPro is "too big" and the iMac is "too small". For my needs, an "in between" product would be the way to go...just make sure it has enough video power to drive the 30".
 
no quad core laptops

There will be no quad core laptops any time soon.

Apple could (and would) turn off cores [as they do now] when on battery but putting a quad core chip in an Apple aluminum laptop would mean that it would be too hot when thethered to the power brick and spun up. I burned my legs with my MacBook Pro already. Seriously. I ran it on my lap under load with pants on and the skin on my legs was sore from a 1st degree burn the next day.
In brief:
1st, Intel has a mobile chip roadmap and quad cores are not on it.
2nd, quad cores, even at 45nm are too hot for Apple's thin Aluminum cases when spun up.
3rd, Intel CHIPSETS put out more heat than the CPUs, that's why mobile chipsets run half the clock of desktops.. quad cores need the fast bus or they get bandwidth constrained.

Just an addition about PPC and Power.
PPC is based on IBM's Power [3 component chips in the 'processor'], technology from Motorola's RISC effors and Apple. Apple actually had Microprocessor developers on staff (they did develop all their chipsets afterall). Linley Gwennap from the Microprocessor Review used to work at Apple as an Engineer.
PowerPC is a subset of Power, including most of the Power ISA though it's relatively easy enough to work around the missing instructions. PowerPC is divergent from Power though. PowerPC code won't run on Power chips.. particularly Velocity Engine [accellerate framework..] which isn't present in Power.
The Power6 is related but it's NOT a PowerPC chip. You can't run Macintosh PPC code on that processor. They're 2nd or 3rd cousins not twins. :)
Power6 [and Power5] are monsterous chips. Details are still sketchy on Power6 but as an example of what were talking about, the Power5 Multi-Chip-Module [i'm told] requires 500-600lbs of force to seat the chip pins into the massive socket. There's a special tool for it. They might have implemented a ZIF or contacts over the years but I clearly remember reading this from IBM.

ffakr.
 
I don't want to really subscribe to this thread... but if there's any chance whatsoever that my addition to it will expedite Apple's getting of, or release of, these chips... then so be it.

Baby needs a new Mac Pro.
 
Add the "Macbook Workstation" to the lineup

ffakr said:
There will be no quad core laptops any time soon.
Click to expand...

http://laptops.engadget.com/2007/06/03/intel-reveals-quad-core-laptop-chip-in-the-pipeline-for-2008/

"Confirming something that we had already seen hints of, Intel has announced that it is looking forward to quad core laptops hitting the scene throughout 2008."​

No arguments with the rest of your post though - seems reasonable.

On the other hand, though, Apple could easily add the Macbook Workstation to the lineup - a desktop replacement system which goes for power over portability.

Note that I said add, doesn't mean that the MBP has to go away!

Many people in the media world would lap these up for mobile studio work. These guys have tons (sometimes literally) of camera and audio gear, and always work on AC power. A 4 or 5 kg, 3cm to 4cm thick laptop with quad cores, 4 GiB to 8 GiB of RAM, and two spindles wouldn't weigh them down. Heck, make it in both 17" and 20" sizes.

Add the odd gamer, and the desktop replacement market (the people who want the computer out-of-sight when not in use - they think an iMac is ugly compared to a portable in a drawer), and Apple would have a big profit stream.
 
it's not about speed only...

mhar4 said:
Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?
Click to expand...

Uhh...does that 6 Ghz chip run Windows?

I think you're underestimating the fact that switching to Intel means Windows users can freely switch machines without losing their critical apps.

And I think the fact that Apple's mobile market share has doubled inside of a year is pretty much proof of this.
 
nja247 said:
However without programs designed for multi-core use, having four cores in a non-server environment at this time would not neccessarily equate to a real world gain in performance...
Click to expand...

I think this point is overplayed in multicore discussions, and not strictly true anyway.

Most people run more than one application at a time, and the operating system is constantly doing things in the background, so even if every application only had one thread of execution one still gets benefit from multiple processors or cores. Moreover, we're not even "without programs designed for multi-core use". If you open ThreadViewer.app and attach it to applications that you use, you may be surprised to see several threads of execution already there. And we know that this will increase with Leopard.
 
pohl said:
I think this point is overplayed in multicore discussions, and not strictly true anyway.

Most people run more than one application at a time, and the operating system is constantly doing things in the background, so even if every application only had one thread of execution one still gets benefit from multiple processors or cores.
Click to expand...

For example, right now I'm copying a 50 GB virtual machine .VMDK file from one machine to another across my home Gigabit network.

The file server (2.6 GHz P4) is pegged at about 95% CPU usage in the file serving and TCP/IP stack. Very slow to respond to any screen clicks.

The machine grabbing the file, however, is a quad 2.66 Kentsfield, and it's as snappy as ever. If you look at the CPU monitor, though, you see that one core is very busy - again in the filesystem and network code.
 
ffakr said:
There will be no quad core laptops any time soon.

Apple could (and would) turn off cores [as they do now] when on battery but putting a quad core chip in an Apple aluminum laptop would mean that it would be too hot when thethered to the power brick and spun up. I burned my legs with my MacBook Pro already. Seriously. I ran it on my lap under load with pants on and the skin on my legs was sore from a 1st degree burn the next day.
Click to expand...
When did they do that? On battery you're going to see lower clock speeds but you're not going to see a core shut down.
 
Macrumors said:
The internal memo revealed that the 45nm Xeons (server class chips) will feature a 1333 MHz front-side bus and 6MB of L2 Cache per core.
Click to expand...

Just a potential correction... the DailyTech article says that, for the Xeons, "Each die features 6MB of L2 cache -- giving the two dice quad-core Harpertown Xeons a total of 12MB of L2 cache." So if I'm understanding this correctly, it's not 6MB of cache per core, but rather per die (2 cores). The thought of having a 8-core Mac Pro with 48MB of L2 cache was just too good to be true :D (but the actual 24MB we'll apparently see is nothing to laugh at either!)
 
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