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?

Just for my own interest how does a maxed out quad compare with its pc equivalent (amd or intel)? ( I realise that this could be a fairly bad question because I'm not giving specifics or anything, its just to satisfy my own curiosity)
 
Generally Desktop processors do not support SMP. So neither Conroe nor kentsfield should support SMP. Woodcrest and Clovertown should do it though. Intel is releasing Tigerton for MP configuration around Mid 2007. Maybe we will see xserve with tigerton.

macpro with single proc and dual core should use conroe (lowend?)
macpro with dual proc and dual core woodcrest
macpro with single proc and quad core (kentsfield)
macpro with dual proc and quad core (clovertown).

I believe apple should offer all these options. First 2 should be hopefully available by Q3 of this year. Intel might sqeeze in kentsfield and clovertown by end of the year so by Q1 2007 we should see quad core mac pros.

Once Intel releases Tukwila in early 2008 with CSI and IMC that would be a good time for Apple to look at itanium platform as well.
 
It makes sense to use Woodcrest in the PowerMac replacement. Here's what I hope for.

MacBook (Pro), Mac mini and iMac - Core Duo / Merom
Mac Pro - Woodcrest

I also think it makes more sense for Apple to introduce a standard mini tower now that they're on the offensive when it comes to market share. And I think this yet to be announced price competitive headless desktop will use Conroe.

Ideally they'll even offer it in a barebones configuration that only includes the case, the motherboard, the power supply and an OS X license.
 
paddy said:
Just for my own interest how does a maxed out quad compare with its pc equivalent (amd or intel)? ( I realise that this could be a fairly bad question because I'm not giving specifics or anything, its just to satisfy my own curiosity)
Click to expand...
A maxed out quad G5 is on par with a 2.5 GHz quad core Opteron or a 3.6 GHz quad Xeon give or take some depending on what you intend to use it for.
 
twoodcc said:
i don't think that'll ever happen. i sure hope not.
Click to expand...
Why not? Component compatibility issues? I know that's going to be a problem, but people who buy barebones solutions and build the rest themselves usually know that they have to spend some time selecting and troubleshooting components. It's like a hobby.
 
Photorun said:
Actually Adobe is currently on schedule to hit February 07 or earlier.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Unless of course something more recent than this article from a month ago quoting the Adobe CEO has been released. :cool:
 
gekko513 said:
Why not? Component compatibility issues? I know that's going to be a problem, but people who buy barebones solutions and build the rest themselves usually know that they have to spend some time selecting and troubleshooting components. It's like a hobby.
Click to expand...

i know, but not Apple. they aren't "cheap" like that. barebones just does not fit Apple. it's not their style.
 
twoodcc said:
i know, but not Apple. they aren't "cheap" like that. barebones just does not fit Apple. it's not their style.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, but I think it's more likely for Apple to enter the market for affordable but still flexible and expandable headless desktops now when they're on the offense when it comes to market share.
 
gekko513 said:
A maxed out quad G5 is on par with a 2.5 GHz quad core Opteron or a 3.6 GHz quad Xeon give or take some depending on what you intend to use it for.
Click to expand...

That's pretty good for Qual G5 compared with Qual 2.5 opteron. Never heard of 3.6 qual Xeon, not counting HT.
 
a little naive?

Analog Kid said:
To say it's not priced per core is a little naive... While I would expect 2 four-core devices might be cheaper than 8 single-core devices, a four-core would certainly be more expensive than one single-core.

There's all kinds of factors that will go into the pricing of the device: silicon size and yield (which goes down as Si size goes up) are just two of the obvious technical costs, while marketing considerations and product line placement are non-technical drivers. On top of that you have system costs that are certainly not equal: chipsets, memory, power supply....

All these issues are addressed with each successive model... the number of cores per processor has very little impact as long as the yields are decent.

Doubling the number of cores could easily add more than $1-2k to the system-- take a look at Intel's price lists:
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

The biggest determinant in Intel price lists is the price they think the chip can command. This changes with adoption - the cost of going dual core with the new laptop was minor, but then Apple is featuring Intel - effectively this is both volume and co-op advertising, both drive the price down.

Don't forget that Apple is rumored to be developing Final Cut Extreme for very high-end video work. This is a much less cost-sensitive market that may be the target intro point of an 8-core product. They may take advantage of this position to price up their top-of-the-line PowerMac and leave "normal" FCP editors with a 4-core machine for a generation.


If this sounds like it was written by a guy who did time in the Intel trenches before going Mac, maybe that's not by accident...
Click to expand...
 
miloblithe said:
Wouldn't the competition use the same thing?
Click to expand...

The difference is in the OS and apps, just like it always has been.

Windows XP is OK with multiple processors, and server-side Windows apps do really really well with multiple procs, but your garden-variety consumer-grade Windows apps are just simply not up to multiple processors. Primarily, because up to very recently, you've had to pay through the nose to get a dual-CPU Intel or AMD box.

Apple has a lot longer history with putting dual CPUs in the hands of the masses, and that has had an effect on the multiple-CPU-readiness of OS X apps.

How many apps do you have on your Mac that are ready to take advantage of at least 2-3 cores in an 8-core box? Probably a lot more than you even know about! Your Windows counterpart is, other than a few oddball apps, going to be running each app on its own core, which is nice and fast and all, but nowhere near the speed you'll be zipping around with that app able to take on several cores at once.

Of course, the people least likely to see a difference here (between a Woodcrest Mac and Woodcrest WinPC) are those who run many small apps, or who run larger apps that are multi-threaded already. For them, it comes down to how well the OS manages shifting processes amongst multiple cores, and at that level, IMHO, Windows actually has an advantage.
 
dllavaneras said:
So, just to be on the safe side: Would I see a performance gain if I'm moving from a 700Mhz eMac? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No. You will still make just as many typos in Word, and still be able to read one web page at a time served up at approximately the speed your broadband provider is willing to send it to you.

However, you may be warmer while typing, and that may in fact limber up your fingers, so maybe ...
 
gekko513 said:
It makes sense to use Woodcrest in the PowerMac replacement. Here's what I hope for.

MacBook (Pro), Mac mini and iMac - Core Duo / Merom
Mac Pro - Woodcrest
Click to expand...

Mac Mini, MacBook/iBook intel- Coure Duo
MacBook Pro/iMac-Merom
PowerMac intel/ Mac Pro/ Xserve- WoodCrest
 
gah!

Hector said:
anyone who seriously thought apple would use conroe in the powermac is retarded, seriously why would apple go from a quad G5 to a single dual core intel core, it would just look lame.

sseriously who said that conroe was the powermac cpu replacement, whoever did should be added to my retard hall of fame.

woodcrest -> powermac, xserve

conroe -> imac

yonah, merom -> macbook/macbook pro/mac mini

no the imac will not overheat with conroe not too long ago the imac had a 2.1GHz G5 in it the core duo is used at the moment as it's the only decent intel cpu.
Click to expand...

If you realised, the Quad is basically TWO DUAL G5 chips. So the could in theory use the Conroe in the PowerMac (Mac Pro... whatever you want to call them)

Although, the Woodcrest would make it an AWESOME machine, no doubt about that.
 
G4 12" powerbook is only one left there

since the new intel macs have come, there has been decreasing G4 powerbooks, only 12" powerbook stand for a short while now.
 
Willis said:
If you realised, the Quad is basically TWO DUAL G5 chips. So the could in theory use the Conroe in the PowerMac (Mac Pro... whatever you want to call them)
Click to expand...

Actually, Conroe cannot run in a dual-socket configuration, so a Conroe-based system is limited to two cores. :cool:
 
Call me a softy, but I don't think anyone who can foresee Conroe in the desktop Mac is a "retard." From everything I've read, Conroe is going to be fabulous.

Will it put the G5 Quad to shame? I sincerely doubt it. Will it compete with it in its highest configuration? I really think it will be relatively close. Perhaps optimized code will make up some of the performance difference, or it could be that Apple has something up their sleeve to "distract" us from a slight discrepancy in performance from a next generation machine (like putting the pressure on Adobe for universal CS3 ahead of schedule...).

Wishful thinking--it makes you feel better, and it's cheaper than an upgrade. ;)
 
Danksi said:
Lower spec'd full tower, that's fully upgradable, would be nice.
Click to expand...
They already tried it with the single 1.8 Ghz PowerMac, and that was discontinued due to poor sales. I think a smaller form factor will make buyers more confident in their purchase. That way they don't think they are getting the weakest PowerMac. So I am thinking a mini G5ish tower that looks kind of like this:
7236G5-HD.jpg

Maybe they will introduce a 17" widescreen monitor to go along with it and the mac mini?
 
corywoolf said:
They already tried it with the single 1.8 Ghz PowerMac, and that was discontinued due to poor sales. I think a smaller form factor will make buyers more confident in their purchase. That way they don't think they are getting the weakest PowerMac. So I am thinking a mini G5ish tower that looks kind of like this:
7236G5-HD.jpg

Maybe they will introduce a 17" widescreen monitor to go along with it and the mac mini?
Click to expand...

that looks nice
 
Willis said:
If you realised, the Quad is basically TWO DUAL G5 chips. So the could in theory use the Conroe in the PowerMac (Mac Pro... whatever you want to call them)
Click to expand...

Most of the PowerPC chips in the past have been designed to be usable in a multi-chip system, including the dual core G5. I am quite sure that Conroe (and Yonah, and Merom) are _not_ designed to be used in a multi-chip system, so they cannot go beyond the two cores in a single chip.

Woodcrest is basically a Conroe, with multi-chip support added (so you can have a four core system made from two processors), with enormous caches added, and a matching price tag. For a dual core system, Conroe will run almost as fast as Woodcrest for much less money, and if you spend the money saved on more RAM, faster/bigger harddisk, faster graphics card, you will end up overall with a better system for the same price.

The problem is that Conroe is limited to two processors. Conroe systems will be a bit faster than Yonah systems (slightly bigger caches, higher clockspeed, more instructions per clock), but there will be no Conroe system for some time that can beat a Quad G5. So the high end PowerMac will be either a quad core G5 or a quad core Woodcrest.
 
gnasher729 said:
The problem is that Conroe is limited to two processors. Conroe systems will be a bit faster than Yonah systems (slightly bigger caches, higher clockspeed, more instructions per clock), but there will be no Conroe system for some time that can beat a Quad G5. So the high end PowerMac will be either a quad core G5 or a quad core Woodcrest.
Click to expand...

Conroe is limited to two cores not two processors.

Woodcrest is limited to two processors, each with two cores.

Perhaps Apple could come out with a nice 4-way or 8-way system. 8 CPUs * quad cores * hyperthreading = plenty of power.
 
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