Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who cares about the number of cores, the most important feature of this is chip is the power footprint and the pipeline. The Woodcrest also has the new shared cache. it's the perfect chip for the *Mac platform.

4 Core is Cloverton, not woodcrest, so that'd be EOY according to IDF announces. good news is it is supposedly socket compatible.
 
boncellis said:
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. ;)

so apple will come out and say "the intel mac pro it's just a bit slower than the quad, wooo go intel"

yeah,,,,, right.

if you think conroe is going in a pro mac it's not, all it's going in is the imac, the core duo is a stop gap as it's the only decent cpu intel has.

the powermac will have dual woodcrest's to have a total of 4 cores, while in a perfect world apple would want to offer a single dual mac pro and could use conroe they would need to design a separate logic board as the woodcrest and conroe will use different sockets and northbridge's.

they may offer a single dual woodcrest, but if i were apple i'd go for an all dual dual line.
 
Misleading

A lot of the information found in this post is misleading and should be cleared up here is a link to an intel document that talks about their roadmap.

intel decoder ring

Conroe
To make things clear "Conroe" will not be able to be used in a Dual or Multi-processor configuration. Conroe is limited to ONE cpu with TWO cores. To be released 3rd quarter 2006.

Woodcrest
Woodcrest is the designation for the chip that is capable of a Dual-processor configuration, but is not capable of running in a multi-processor configuration. So the limit is TWO cpu's for a total of FOUR cores. To be released 3rd quarter 2006.

Kentsfield
Kentsfield is two dual-core CPUs in a single housing. In essence it is two Woodcrest CPU's in one housing. It is to be released 1st quarter of 2007. Which will not be available when the rumored Mac Pro's are to be announced in August.

Sossaman
I believe this is the most likely choice for the future Xserves due to it's low power consumption and small thermal footprint. It is a Core Duo exactly like the ones available now except it is capable of being placed in a dual-processor configuration.

Cloverton
This is the first true quad-core processor. It will be capable of a dual-processor configuration to make EIGHT total cores. Will be available first quarter 2007. Until then we will not see an 8-core Mac Pro.

Tigerton
This is the same as Cloverton except it can be placed in a multi-processor configuration. Giving you the ability to have four Tigerton CPU's or 16 cores. This will not be available until later in 2007.

Merom
This is Conroe but targeted at the mobile market. Will not be available until the Holiday shopping season of 2006.


So any announcements made in August will use Conroe or Woodcrest, and will not exceed four cores!
 
danielwsmithee said:
A lot of the information found in this post is misleading and should be cleared up here is a link to an intel document that talks about their roadmap.

intel decoder ring

Thanks for this, hopefully it helps some people here. I have been quoting this content many times in these Forums, but hopefully posting the document itself will assist further.
 
I thought this might clarify pricing expectations between Conroe and Woodcrest. I don't know how this compares with the price of the dual core G5 used in the Quad:

2.67 Ghz Conroe 4 MB Cache $530
2.40 Ghz Conroe 4 MB Cache $316
2.13 Ghz Conroe 2 MB Cache $244
1.86 Ghz Conroe 2 MB Cache $209

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1619

3.00 Ghz Woodcrest $850 (All 4MB Cache)
2.66 Ghz Woodcrest $700
2.33 Ghz Woodcrest $470
2.00 Ghz Woodcrest $330
1.86 Ghz Woodcrest $270
1.60 Ghz Woodcrest $230

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29510

2.66 Ghz Woodcrest over Conroe $170
1.86 Ghz Woodcrest over Conroe $70

Two 1.86 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.67 Ghz Conroe, $10

Two 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.67 Ghz Conroe $870
Two 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.40 Ghz Conroe $624
Two 2.00 Ghz Woodcrest over one 2.14 Ghz Conroe $416
Two 1.86 Ghz Woodcrest over one 1.86 Ghz Conroe $331

Two 3.00 Ghz Woodcrest $1700
Two 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest $1400
Two 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest $940
Two 2.00 Ghz Woodcrest $660
Two 1.86 Ghz Woodcrest $540
One 2.67 Ghz Conroe $530
Two 1.60 Ghz Woodcrest $460
One 2.40 Ghz Conroe $316
One 2.13 Ghz Conroe $244
One 1.86 Ghz Conroe $209
 
danielwsmithee said:
Kentsfield
Kentsfield is two dual-core CPUs in a single housing. In essence it is two Woodcrest CPU's in one housing. It is to be released 1st quarter of 2007. Which will not be available when the rumored Mac Pro's are to be announced in August.

...

Cloverton
This is the first true quad-core processor. It will be capable of a dual-processor configuration to make EIGHT total cores. Will be available first quarter 2007. Until then we will not see an 8-core Mac Pro.
[/B]


I think Kentsfield is two Conroes in a single housing, and Clovertown is two Woodcrests in a single housing. Clovertown is not more "true" than Kentsfield. Tigerton should be interesting because of a new interconnection scheme between multiple processors.
 
corywoolf said:
So I am thinking a mini G5ish tower that looks kind of like this:
7236G5-HD.jpg

No, not like that...

I smell the cube coming back, only this time with an aluminum case like that so it doesn't crack. ;)

(I would do a mockup, but my photoshop skills are limited. Curse you 4.0.1! :D )
 
~Shard~ said:
Actually, Conroe cannot run in a dual-socket configuration, so a Conroe-based system is limited to two cores. :cool:

ahh i stand corrected. Well, im hoping you sort of gathered what i meant, but yeah... eitherway, the future of Apple looks exciting with Intel's roadmaps. 2007/8 will be insane. imagine a quad mobile chip by that time.

I also doubt laptops will get any thinner. 1inch has brought some issues up such as the DL option in a 15" MBP. Probs by then, we might also have a 20" screen too. crazy idea, but nice to think about.
 
Hector said:
so apple will come out and say "the intel mac pro it's just a bit slower than the quad, wooo go intel"

You obviously missed the point, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Who said it will be slower? Conroe isn't even out yet, for one. The point I made is that it might not even be slower (it probably will be in some applications, but not across the board) because of other compensatory improvements tuned for the next generation.

The more you call people "retards" the more you look like one, btw.
 
Hector said:
conroe is benchmarked, i'm far more informed than you your pulling on threads.

I suppose I don't put as much stock in the benchmarks as you do, I'm more interested in the real world experience.

Also, for the record, I didn't predict anything about the next PowerMac replacement, I just didn't think you calling people names was the right way to go with regards to a differing opinion.

You may be right about Woodcrest, that's not really the point. The point is you just don't know until it happens, and the more you belittle the folks here on this board the more ridiculous it seems. It's only your opinion, in the end.
 
Kentsfield vs. Clovertown

DavidCar said:
I think Kentsfield is two Conroes in a single housing, and Clovertown is two Woodcrests in a single housing. Clovertown is not more "true" than Kentsfield. Tigerton should be interesting because of a new interconnection scheme between multiple processors.

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that Kentsfield is two Woodcrests dies in a single package, as Conroe does not have the on die logic to support Dual-processor configurations. Cloverton will be four cores all on the same die all four able to share from the same cache.

But then again maybe I am wrong and Tigerton will be the first to have that feature.
 
Sweat

DavidCar said:
Two 3.00 Ghz Woodcrest $1700
That is going to be one expensive top of the line Mac Pro, pretty sweat though a Quad 3.00 Ghz machine. The current Quad G5 is very fast but this thing will fly.

My predictions.

Mac Pro Quad 3.0 Ghz
Mac Pro Quad 2.6 or 2.3 Ghz
Mac Pro Dual 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)

iMac 23" Gaming Edition 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 20" 2.13 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 17" 1.86 Ghz (Conroe)

I would actualy love it if you could just order the Mac Pro Quad or the Mac Pro Dual and then just select from 2-3 processor speeds for each configuration.
 
boncellis said:
I suppose I don't put as much stock in the benchmarks as you do, I'm more interested in the real world experience.

Also, for the record, I didn't predict anything about the next PowerMac replacement, I just didn't think you calling people names was the right way to go with regards to a differing opinion.

You may be right about Woodcrest, that's not really the point. The point is you just don't know until it happens, and the more you belittle the folks here on this board the more ridiculous it seems. It's only your opinion, in the end.

well i'm baseing my knowledge both on what i expect and confirmation from people i know that work at apple.

i stand by my opinion that it's very very very very very unlikely and i'd bet my own life against it that conroe will be the powermacs cpu. woodcrest is an SMP conroe with a few minor modifications.

as for benchmarks they are real world apps, synthetic benches are mostly meaningless.
 
Performance?

Hector:
Are you saying that you think the Quad 2.5 Ghz G5 will be faster then a new Woodcrest Quad 3 GHz?

The Quad G5 is very fast, and I expect it to be faster in certain applications with a lot of Altivec code and floating point calculations, but the integer performance of the Woodcrests should make the new Mac Pro seam much much faster.

As it is already the Core Duo based iMacs "feel faster" then the G5 based powermacs.
 
danielwsmithee said:
Hector:
Are you saying that you think the Quad 2.5 Ghz G5 will be faster then a new Woodcrest Quad 3 GHz?

The Quad G5 is very fast, and I expect it to be faster in certain applications with a lot of Altivec code and floating point calculations, but the integer performance of the Woodcrests should make the new Mac Pro seam much much faster.

As it is already the Core Duo based iMacs "feel faster" then the G5 based powermacs.


no i'm saying a conroe powermac would be slower than the quad.
 
That is Clear

Hector said:
no i'm saying a conroe powermac would be slower than the quad.
Oh OK. I couldn't quite figure out what all the debate was about.:eek: It is pretty obvious that a Conroe based Mac Pro would be slower then the current Quad G5, because it would be limited to two cores.
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
Eight cores?? How expensive is that going to be?!! :-O

The Quad G5 costs enough as it is but an eight core machine, Intel or not will probably clock in at 1-2k extra on the quad's price. That's just getting ridiculous!!
I am sure that the eight cores will be an option for people that have a use for it (Final Cut, Maya, Adobe Universal, and Aperture users). I am really waiting to get a new powermac, or whatever they are going to be called, so I can rock it. My wife is a Photographer and I am a Simulation and Game Design Student, and we both use Photoshop, Aperture, and Maya. Now I can also use my new macs to code in .NET for my classes. I can't F'in wait.
 
8-Core Macs Will Not Cost A Fortune And They Will Still Be Too Slow

Spanky Deluxe said:
Eight cores?? How expensive is that going to be?!! :-O

The Quad G5 costs enough as it is but an eight core machine, Intel or not will probably clock in at 1-2k extra on the quad's price. That's just getting ridiculous!!
Boy I could not disagree more strongly. There is nothing ridiculous nor will there be anything too expensive about 8-core Macs. They are both NEEDED and WANTED by tens of thousands of multimedia professionals and moreover by MILLIONS OF CONSUMERS. For you to criticize the idea that there is a limit to how much power even the lowly consumer needs is to fail to understand how truly SLOW and CRAPPY what we have now really is. I have to wait HOURS to render huge Broadcast HDTV files into manageable archivable mp4 files because of this lack of power on todays so called state-of-the-art Quad. You sir are completely out of touch with reality. And it makes me very angry when people like you say enough is enough because IT ISN'T!!! :eek: :eek:
hondaboy945 said:
I am sure that the eight cores will be an option for people that have a use for it (Final Cut, Maya, Adobe Universal, and Aperture users). I am really waiting to get a new powermac, or whatever they are going to be called, so I can rock it. My wife is a Photographer and I am a Simulation and Game Design Student, and we both use Photoshop, Aperture, and Maya. Now I can also use my new macs to code in .NET for my classes. I can't F'in wait.
The 8 Core Mac will not cost a fortune. They will probably cost no more than about $4,000. And they will STILL BE TOO SLOW. Get it? :eek:
 
danielwsmithee said:
That is going to be one expensive top of the line Mac Pro, pretty sweat though a Quad 3.00 Ghz machine. The current Quad G5 is very fast but this thing will fly.

My predictions.

Mac Pro Quad 3.0 Ghz
Mac Pro Quad 2.6 or 2.3 Ghz
Mac Pro Dual 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)

iMac 23" Gaming Edition 2.6 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 20" 2.13 Ghz (Conroe)
iMac 17" 1.86 Ghz (Conroe)

I would actualy love it if you could just order the Mac Pro Quad or the Mac Pro Dual and then just select from 2-3 processor speeds for each configuration.

I'm wondering if it would be sensible to have a Mac Mini Maxi with a 2.6Ghz Conroe, rather than having a Conroe flavor of Mac Pro or a Mini Tower.
 
danielwsmithee said:
I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that Kentsfield is two Woodcrests dies in a single package, as Conroe does not have the on die logic to support Dual-processor configurations. Cloverton will be four cores all on the same die all four able to share from the same cache.

But then again maybe I am wrong and Tigerton will be the first to have that feature.

You make an interesting point, because we've been assuming Conroe doesn't have the logic for Dual-processor configurations. I don't know how well any of them do cache sharing.

But I found a site in Chinese that shows a picture of Clovertown with two chips, and also refers to an eight core machine. Probably from the recent Intel Taiwan Developer Forum. Now if only someone here could translate the Chinese...

http://it.enorth.com.cn/system/2006/04/13/001280624.shtml

Also:
Intel’s Chief technology officer Justin Rattner, who showed off a computer running two of the first four Clovertown chips produced, declined to say whether all four cores are on a single die, or if Clovertown would use two dual-core chips stuck together. Putting cores on the same die is more efficient since they can more easily exchange information and share resources.

Rattner said he envisioned a day when a single chip will have tens or even hundreds of cores, echoing the early era of the electronics industry when companies raced to see how many transistors they could squeeze on a chip. "It’s kind of like how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?" Rattner said. But he said there were significant challenges in breaking beyond eight or 16 cores, from how to provide enough system memory to how to write software to take advantage of the new features.

Adding cores requires careful planning. Energy efficiency, data input/output and memory latency (the time it takes data to go from memory and the processor and vice versa) will be major issues with each level of core expansion.

To get around some of these issues, Intel is conducting research into circuit design and chip architecture as it has in the past. In addition, the company is working with application developers to determine how the architecture of its chips can be optimized.
By working with one server application developer, Intel determined that it needed to make three small changes to the architecture of one of its future server chips. Before the changes, the application only ran well in simulations on chips with 16 cores. After that, performance began to decline, Rattner said. After the changes, performance continued to climb. "We got it to scale well past 32" cores, he said.

http://www.24x7updates.com/FullStory-News-Clovertown_A_quad_core_server_chip_by_Intel-ID-200891.html
 
DavidCar said:
But I found a site in Chinese that shows a picture of Clovertown with two chips, and also refers to an eight core machine. Probably from the recent Intel Taiwan Developer Forum. Now if only someone here could translate the Chinese...
From the looks of the pictures it does appear that Kentsfield, Cloverton, and Tigerton all use to dual-core dies slapped into a single housing. The only difference appears to be what configuration you can use the chips in. Maybe it will not be until 2008-2009 that we get four cores on a single die, and 8 cores in a housing.
 
danielwsmithee said:
From the looks of the pictures it does appear that Kentsfield, Cloverton, and Tigerton all use to dual-core dies slapped into a single housing. The only difference appears to be what configuration you can use the chips in. Maybe it will not be until 2008-2009 that we get four cores on a single die, and 8 cores in a housing.

Bring on Dunnington and Harpertown... :cool:
 
edit: i'm a basterd, seriously i've been makeing nasty posts, dont know what thats about so i'll think of something constructive

to people saying you'll update when the next gen of woodcrest comes out i really wouldn't until intel comes out with cpu's with the equivalent of hypertransport and an on die memory controller, as your not going to get much of a performence increase unless you get more cores.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.