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

Woodcrest Processor in the PowerMac?

MacQuest said:
There is a HUGE product line and price gap in Apple's current non-integrated display Mac line-up with the integrated graphics using, high end Mac mini @ $799 and the lowest end PowerPC based PowerMac @ $1999.
Click to expand...

nagromme said:
Agreed. There seems to be a lot of demand for something in the middle (preferably with upgradable GPU).

I expect Apple will release a midrange headless.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Something to compete with those Media Center PC's in that $1000 - $1500 price range, especially now that Apple is including Front Row on ALL of their Macs.

It just makes sense. A smaller [or mini] version of the upcoming Mac Pro... Mac Pro mini. :)
 
24ghz?!?!?!

I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!
 
Spartacus said:
I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!
Click to expand...

And just think, in a few years, there might be hardware threading to make this look lame ........

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-04-13/#5359
 
Spartacus said:
I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!
Click to expand...

additional cores and processors are not the equivalent of multiplying the frequency... :rolleyes:

completely different...
 
4 Core Processors Are Kentsfield Scheduled For Early 2007 Manufacturing

Spartacus said:
I heard somewhere that each core of these Woodcrest processors are going to be 3ghz and higher. Does this mean that a dual core quad core Woodcrest Powermac is going to start at 24ghz?! (3ghz x 4 cores = 12ghz x 2 = 24ghz) If my math is right, this is insane!
Click to expand...
Not really insane Spartacus if you work with video. But it'll be a good start. ;) Please allow me to clarify the situation and your misuse of the terminology. Not dual core quad core - you mean Dual Quad Core. Woodcrest processors are Dual Core. Kentsfield processors are Quad Core. This is NEXT YEAR not anytime this year.

And I must reinterate that there is nothing insane about these speeds when you work with video. I doubt they will be fast enough. My experience is that we will need a lot more than 24GHz worth of 64-bit power to get video work done fast. Bottom line is that simple consumer electronics type work with HDTV is a BITCH - no insult meant to any women here. I think perhaps 100 GHz worth of power might begin to solve the waiting game. And I think we have a few more years before we get there.

My understanding is that the 4-core Woodcrest processors are known as Kentsfield processors and that Intel has not scheduled to begin manufacturing them until early 2007. Therefore, I do not believe Apple will ship the 8-core Mac until after the January MacWorld Expo. I tend to think that it will want to ship with Leopard on-board to maximally take advantage of 10.5's superior multi-processing task delegation management powers.

Would Alden Shaw or some other know-it-all here please verify my understanding or correct me? This rumor could really get out of control unless we all understand 8-core Macs are not until next year. Thank you in advance for your assistance. :eek: ;) :rolleyes: :)
 
Clarification: Woodcrest is 2-core only!

Just to clarify...
Woodcrest is only two cores!

There.

The whole '8 cores' thing comes from two dual-core chips, with hyperthreading. Hyperthreading makes each core pretend it is two cores. Then you have two cores per socket, and two sockets. 2*2*2=8. Still only two sockets. Still only two physical cores per socket. You can have a similar setup right now using two dual-core Xeon chips. The current dual-core Xeons (and even the dual-core desktop 'Pentium Extreme Edition') have Hyperthreading. Each socket appears to the OS as 4 chips.

To explain Hyperthreading: Hyperthreading is a technology first introduced by Intel in their high-end server chips, the 'Xeon', a few years ago. It later trickled down to the desktop Pentium 4 chips, only to be dropped from the dual-core Pentium-D (then added back for the 'Extreme Edition'.) It makes one core present itself to the OS as two. The main purpose for this is to keep the processor busy all the time. Most single-threaded applications really have a lot of down time, waiting for information from main memory (or worse, disk,) leaves the processor with a lot of empty (wasted) cycles. Hyperthreading attempts to alleviate this by making the processor work on two threads at once, working on a second thread while the first waits on data.

So a two year old 'Pentium 4 Processor with HT Technology' (as Intel officially calls it,) only has one core, but pretends that it has two. It most certainly does not make the processor twice as fast, at ANYTHING, as a non-hyperthreaded chip, it does give some improvement, especially in multitasking situations. Some benchmarks have the improvement as much as 50%, but most are more modest, in the 10-20% range. (Going to a real dual processor or dual-core system can produce full 100% speed improvements in certain tests; but also often falls short of that.)

That means that a dual-core processor with hyperthreading will pretend to be 4 processors (and would get somewhere between 40% and 150% better performance than a single, non-hyperthreaded core in multithreaded environments.)
 
low-end headless PowerMac

Danksi said:
Lower spec'd full tower, that's fully upgradable, would be nice.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the last time Apple gave us what we asked for it was quite crippled -- single 1.8GHz G5 with a 2/3 speed bus and (if I recall correctly) slower memory. Sure it was an okay machine but it cost the same as the same-spec'd iMac which also included an LCD display.

If Apple does go with quad core CPUs for the PowerMac, I would at least hope they keep a dual core for their mid-range unit without chopping specs.
 
maximumbarkly said:
moot point. It just means that the Powermac will remain the high end machine it always was.

Also keep in mind that OS X could probably take advantage of this better than XP or Vista.
Click to expand...

Yes, OS X already does...XP is less optimized for multiple cores. If this rumor is true, Apple would retain the lead in high-end desktops for at least 2 more years...the Quad is still unsurpassed, and the dual-dual Woodcrest would rock the bases of the PC industry.

I also believe Apple, as a flagship computer maker, might have a sort of "gimme first/I don't care about bugs" agreement with Intel, at least for a short period of time...this would ensure market entry advantage for the company, putting Dell (which is gonna move some gear to AMD), HP and others to shame...Apple is again leading the pack.
 
Multimedia said:
My understanding is that the 4-core Woodcrest processors are known as Kentsfield processors and that Intel has not scheduled to begin manufacturing them until early 2007. Therefore, I do not believe Apple will ship the 8-core Mac until after the January MacWorld Expo. I tend to think that it will want to ship with Leopard on-board to maximally take advantage of 10.5's superior multi-processing task delegation management powers.

Would Alden Shaw or some other know-it-all here please verify my understanding or correct me? This rumor could really get out of control unless we all understand 8-core Macs are not until next year. Thank you in advance for your assistance. :eek: ;) :rolleyes: :)
Click to expand...

Mr. WindowsShaw must be sleeping, but I may answer your question, in accordance with Intel's roadmap; in summary, Woodcrest is NOT Kentsfield.

Intel has 3 main platforms: Server, desktop and mobile.

Woodcrest falls under the server category, delivering DUAL-core processors
Server Platforms, and is planned for the 3Q of 2006 (which might be used for XServes or high-end MacPros). And also under the server category we're gonna have, in 1Q 2007, the QUAD-core Clovertown.

On the other hand, in the desktop arena (probably iMacs and MacPros for Apple), Conroe will be the DUAL-core processor for new machines, and is scheduled to arrive in the 3Q of 2006.

Later on we will receive the QUAD-core Kentsfield, scheduled for introduction in 1Q/2007.

See something similar here? Yes, there is a sort of symmetry in the roadmap.

One big family for improved DUAL-CORE processors (Woodcrest/Conroe), and another (where the BIG change will be) for QUAD-CORE processors (Clovertown/Kentsfield). That's all there is to it.
 
KindredMAC said:
Unless 4 cores can make a difference in Rosetta I just don't see any pluses until Adobe is Universal.... but that's me being a Mac Graphic Artist.
Click to expand...

Uh... Howabout Final Cut Studio, Modo, Cinema 4d, they are all UB and need lot's of processing power? And don't forget you can boot into windows and run XSI, Max, Maya, etc, etc. No offense, but not everyone using a Mac uses it for graphics. Don't forget the music, scientific research and video industries. Also, MOST 3d people are on PC simply because they are faster and cheaper and have more programs available, but that might change if Mac finally beats the benchmarks and gets decent graphics cards. Current Macs, Both IntelMac and PPC are decent machines, but when it comes to 3d, High-end PC's kicks ass. Apple has a long way to go if it plans to win over that segment, and to do that it will need lot's of processing power AND support from video card suppliers.
 
For all people thinking this is true, it isn't.
This rumor was posted by MacOSRumors* a few months ago. They also posted some idiot articles about all the multiple core business in Leopard. So this is all b*llsh*t!

WoodCrest runs at least 3,2 GHz. So 8*3,2 GHz 64-bit would be even faster than the Cell currently, but for Desktop computers that performance wouldn't even be reachable by mid or late 2007.

* For people who don't know: MacOSRumors was the first site to report on the Cube (with an image) since then they only take it on false rumors to get some audience and click their banners. Since they only talk b*llsh*t they should be - and are ignored by the Mac community, altough some people think there rumors are right.

Please verify in the future that such "rumors" aren't posted on MacOSRumors to avoid such things.
 
I am hoping for a new powermac to replace my current one in Q1 2007 i cant afford much more than £1500 but i hope for 4 cores if not 8, but i doubt they will put 8 in the lower models, there will probably be 2 4 cores and one 8 or 1 2 core 1 4 core and 1 8 core.

i also would like a blue-ray drive and a space to add a HD-DVD drive if my prediction of blue-ray coming out on top.
 
timmillwood said:
I am hoping for a new powermac to replace my current one in Q1 2007 i cant afford much more than £1500 but i hope for 4 cores if not 8, but i doubt they will put 8 in the lower models, there will probably be 2 4 cores and one 8 or 1 2 core 1 4 core and 1 8 core.

i also would like a blue-ray drive and a space to add a HD-DVD drive if my prediction of blue-ray coming out on top.
Click to expand...

All that for not much more than 1500? Are you sure that's "all" you want? :rolleyes: ;)

Out of all those options you listed, you'll probably at most get the [as you put it] "1 2 core" [1 Core Duo is what I'm assuming you mean] desktop class processor [Conroe series if introduced @ WWDC '06, Kentsfield series if introduced at MWSF in Q1 '07] in a sub $1500 Mac Pro tower [probably a mini-tower design], or as I'm calling it, the "Mac Pro mini".

However, if the rumor on this thread is true, that Woodcrest server class chips will be used in the new Mac Pro towers [PowerMac replacements], then I would really like to see:

$1099 or $1199 - Mac Pro mini [mini-tower, Core Duo 1x desktop class - Conroe/Kentsfield]
$1399 or $1499 - Mac Pro mini [mini-tower, Core Duo 2x desktop class - Conroe/Kentsfield]

That would be very cool. :cool:
 
Max on Macs said:
But with Xeons they are crap for gaming and such, they're only good in servers, right? Because I use my PowerMac for pro apps, but I like to play WoW as well :eek:
Click to expand...

The performance hit is negligible and only worth worrying about if you are ridiculously fussy and overly concerned with frame rates. I run a four year old dual 1.8Ghz Xeon and it games perfectly well for a machine of that vintage. And anyway, whilst one CPU is gaming, the other can be running all the anti-virus software and so on in the background!

I would be most disappointed if the successor to the PowerMac ran Conroe. Conroe is going to be great, but from a marketing point of view, going from a dual CPU, dual core Power Mac G5 to a single, dual core Conroe is going to look pretty poor. People are seduced by numbers. Apple would have much more to shout about and could make a much bigger impact if they use dual, dual core Woodcrests.

Conroe would fit much better to fill the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, filling the middle of the range, whilst Woodcrest fills the top end.

I'd most likely plump for the top of the range "Mac Pro" as an upgrade for my PC and my 1.5Ghz Mac Mini. A pair of Woodcrests would be mighty fine.
 
Fair enough. If it sitll runs games swell then that's good. I know with AMDs stuff the Opterons are actually better than Athlons, even for gaming. Maybe the Woodcrest will be like that?
 
Appleidee said:
For all people thinking this is true, it isn't.
This rumor was posted by MacOSRumors* a few months ago. They also posted some idiot articles about all the multiple core business in Leopard. So this is all b*llsh*t!

WoodCrest runs at least 3,2 GHz. So 8*3,2 GHz 64-bit would be even faster than the Cell currently, but for Desktop computers that performance wouldn't even be reachable by mid or late 2007.

* For people who don't know: MacOSRumors was the first site to report on the Cube (with an image) since then they only take it on false rumors to get some audience and click their banners. Since they only talk b*llsh*t they should be - and are ignored by the Mac community, altough some people think there rumors are right.

Please verify in the future that such "rumors" aren't posted on MacOSRumors to avoid such things.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this has been explained already...Woodcrest is DUAL core, not QUAD...therefore, we will see 4*3,2, nothing else, unless Hyperthreading is enabled in the Macs as well (honestly I can't recall if it's a Windows-only feature).

And yeah, MOSR is just some funny ********...they are as reliable as Bill Gates making predictions for the "road ahead"...
 
This is what theinquirer expects for Woodcrest speeds and pricing:

Quote:
The Woodcrest 80W series includes the 5160, which is a 3GHz, 4MB cache, 1333MHz system bus processor; the 5150, which clocks at 2.66GHz; the LV 5148 at 2.33GHz; the 5140 at 2.33GHz; the 5130 at 2GHz; the 5120 at 1.86GHz and the 5110 at 1.60GHz. ... Intel has priced up the Woodcrests for the third quarter launch, with the 5148 costing $520, the 5160 $850, the 5150 $700, the 5140 $450, the 5130 $320, the 5120 $255 and the 5110 $210.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30511

A four core Clovertown is to be pin compatible with a dual core Woodcrest, and a four core Kentsfield is to be pin compatible with a dual core Conroe. Quad cores are not expected until 2007, but since two quad cores were seen on an "Octavius" machine in Taiwan, I wonder if Intel would quietly make a small batch of Clovertowns ahead of schedule just for Apple.
 
Glen Quagmire said:
I would be most disappointed if the successor to the PowerMac ran Conroe. Conroe is going to be great, but from a marketing point of view, going from a dual CPU, dual core Power Mac G5 to a single, dual core Conroe is going to look pretty poor.
Click to expand...

Only to G5 PowerMac devotees, which are only a fraction of Mac users, much less the overall market of potential switchers. Sometimes a spec seems to go backwards (even if the result delivered is a step forward)--that's just life. Such as when Apple went from an all-dual G4 tower lineup and then went back to including some singles again.

Dual-core Conroe will not look bad at ALL :)

And no quad-core anythings are expected this year anyway, so the question for now is one of dual-duals, as with the G5.

So... do we KNOW that Conroe can't be used in dual-dual configs? I've seen lots of assumption, but never found a link to OFFICIAL word on that question. TIA for any links to hard info on that!

Also, if anyone's stressed over having to "settle" for two cores, remember that you get diminishing returns from more cores. Duals aren't twice as fast as singles, and quads add even less benefit. Worthwhile, but not AS big a benefit as simply going to a much faster core to begin with. Which is what is about to happen. So while I'd love 4 Conroe/Woodcrest cores in my Mac tower this year, if I only have 2 cores the thing will still fly.
 
woodcrest is just conroe modified to run SMP.

they use different mobo's with different pin configs to accommodate SMP, AMD learnt that lesson with the athlon MP (you could turn a regular athlon into an athlon MP doubleing it's value to make cheap SMP rigs.
 
Hector said:
woodcrest is just conroe modified to run SMP.
Click to expand...

It that confirmed and official, or just a good assumption based on the current Pentium/Xeon arrangement?

Also, if that's the only difference, does that mean people are wrong to assume that Woodcrest would have certain disadvantages (like gaming) compared to Conroe? (Other than price of course.)

Is there any known disadvantage to Woodcrest other than price?

TIA
 
yeah, performence should be about the same, current xeons use a very diffrent socket and are diffrent in a few other ways from the regular P4, but woodcrest looks to be the same cpu with a couple of extra pins and SMP.
 
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