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

Sliverado systems a authorized Apple Service Center and Reseller is offering pre-registering for somthing call "Intel Mac Tower" Maybe it's true! Mac Intel powered desktops are on the way?!?! Here's the link to Sliverado's the pre reg site

http://www.silverado.cc/intel.html
 
Pre-register to buy the new Intel Mac Tower?

Sliverado systems a authorized Apple Service Center and Reseller is offering pre-registering for somthing call "Intel Mac Tower" Maybe it's true! Mac Intel powered desktops are on the way?!?! Here's the link to Sliverado's the pre reg site:)

http://www.silverado.cc/intel.html
 
I'm In The Queue! Are you?

MAC411 said:
Sliverado systems a authorized Apple Service Center and Reseller is offering pre-registering for somthing call "Intel Mac Tower" Maybe it's true! Mac Intel powered desktops are on the way?!?! Here's the link to Sliverado's the pre reg site:)

http://www.silverado.cc/intel.html
I'm officially in the Queue. But I know I won't be buying from them either. :) Just curious to find out when they claim to have them. Here come the QuadIntels. :D
 
Multimedia said:
I'm officially in the Queue. But I know I won't be buying from them either. :) Just curious to find out when they claim to have them. Betting no Quad 'til Kentsfield next Winter. :eek:
There will be a quad with the first round of ProMacIntels.... Think WWDC or before. They won't wait for quad core.

I already have a pair of quads in my lab (Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz/4MB L2/1333MHz FSB)).

Apple could be selling quad ProMacs by the end of the month. Availability of CPUs and chipsets won't be an issue.
 
AidenShaw said:
There will be a quad with the first round of ProMacIntels.... Think WWDC or before. They won't wait for quad core.

I already have a pair of quads in my lab (Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz/4MB L2/1333MHz FSB)).

Apple could be selling quad ProMacs by the end of the month. Availability of CPUs and chipsets won't be an issue.
That's great opinion. I imagine if that's the case they may not wait for WWDC to announce and begin selling them. Top first, I guess, might be the strategy.
 
Multimedia said:
That's great news. I imagine if that's the case they may not wait for WWDC to announce and begin selling them. Top first I guess will be the strategy.
Not "news", just "opinion". ;)

Apple has some leeway with the ProMacIntel release. Since there currently are *no* MacIntel towers, Apple won't be "late" if they wait for WWDC to ship them. Although quad Woodies will be available from other vendors, since Apple has no Intel towers they can't be called slow.

On the other hand, Apple could also announce Woody Xserves and quad Woody ProMacs as soon as the end of the month. The parts would be available, so waiting for WWDC might not be the best plan.

That would leave WWDC as the perfect place to announce the new form-factor 64-bit dual-core Conroe mini-tower/pizza-box. Especially if this is the Apple Media Centre, that would make for a pretty stunning "one more thing" at WWDC.

(Of course, for the Xserve and the ProMac, that little problem of missing fat binaries for some major applications would be a PITA. Apple could alleviate that pain, however, by continuing to ship G5 Xserves and PMG5 systems until the fat binary issue is mostly gone - much like they did with keeping a couple of odd OS9 capable systems in the lineyp.)
 
All Mac Pro will be Quad

The more and more you read, and the more and more you look att prices of the CPU ... I will only gues one thing .. and one thing only ...

All Mac Pro will be Quads .....

that will realy make the PRO in Mac Pro ....

and in 2007 there will be

2 Modells of Mac Pro that is still Quad and one new that is Octa (2x Kentsfield)...
 
Tussen69 said:
The more and more you read, and the more and more you look att prices of the CPU ... I will only gues one thing .. and one thing only ...

All Mac Pro will be Quads .....

that will realy make the PRO in Mac Pro ....

and in 2007 there will be

2 Modells of Mac Pro that is still Quad and one new that is Octa (2x Kentsfield)...

I think you're on to something here. :rolleyes: :cool:
 
AidenShaw said:
Not "news", just "opinion". ;)

Apple has some leeway with the ProMacIntel release. Since there currently are *no* MacIntel towers, Apple won't be "late" if they wait for WWDC to ship them. Although quad Woodies will be available from other vendors, since Apple has no Intel towers they can't be called slow.

Don't worry, people will still say they are slow. It's pretty common knowledge which chips they are waiting for, if those chips arrive and Apple doesn't have a mac running them, they will end up looking late to the party.

Tussen69 said:
All Mac Pro will be Quads .....

that will realy make the PRO in Mac Pro ....

It's a nice theory, if only for bragging rights. But that would probably mean a price bump for even the lowest towers. I'd much rather see apple keep their high end models and add one that's even cheaper. Why not a $1500 (or less) tower or minitower? Looking at pricing, a dual machine makes MORE sense since there's a huge price increase when you go to quad.
 
A quick question,Dear Sir´s.

A exerp from anantech :

The New Intel Platform

The biggest advantage of Intel's newest Bensley platform is longevity: the Dempsey, Woodcrest and quad-core Clovertown Xeon all use the same socket and platform.

Intelplatform20062007.jpg



So my question is merely, is that a stated fact now that the Clovertowns will fit into the socets of the upcoming woodcrest MacPros?

Because,they or at least one of them will be a woodie.
Hopefully.


I am just asking that my work rig needs (HD video and photoshop) to be replaced very,very soon.
So getting a woodie now and when the clowertowns processors ship,i would throw them in and then get rid of the 5150/5160s then.


Does this make sense?
 
Buy Woodcrest Quad Soon And Swap Out Clovertowns For January 2007's First Octopussy

Macinposh said:
A quick question,Dear Sir´s.

A exerp from anantech :
Intelplatform20062007.jpg
So my question is merely, is that a stated fact now that the Clovertowns will fit into the socets of the upcoming woodcrest MacPros?

Because,they or at least one of them will be a woodie. Hopefully.

I am just asking that my work rig needs (HD video and photoshop) to be replaced very,very soon.
So getting a woodie now and when the clowertowns processors ship,i would throw them in and then get rid of the 5150/5160s then.

Does this make sense?
As long as the OS can see all 8 cores sure. :)
 
All Mac Pros Will Be Quads? That Would Mean No Conroe Mac Pros...

Tussen69 said:
The more and more you read, and the more and more you look att prices of the CPU ... I will only gues one thing .. and one thing only ...

All Mac Pro will be Quads .....

that will realy make the PRO in Mac Pro ....

and in 2007 there will be

2 Modells of Mac Pro that is still Quad and one new that is Octa (2x Kentsfield)...
I thought this in January. But Conroes can't be made into Quads. So I am not so sure. The Conroe motherboards are a lot less money than the Woodcrest ones. So conventional wisdom says one Quad Woodcrest and the rest Conroe Core 2 Duos. :)
 
Multimedia said:
As long as the OS can see all 8 cores sure. :)
To expand - you should be able to replace the chips without any problem - physically, that is.

It often requires an update to the firmware (BIOS/EFI) to properly recognize new chips.

It may require operating system support for 8 CPUs, as well.
___________________________________

So the answer is:
  • For Linux/Windows, you'll certainly be able to upgrade
  • For OSx86, it will depend on Apple updating the firmware and the OS
 
Multimedia said:
I thought this in January. But Conroes can't be made into Quads. So I am not so sure. The Conroe motherboards are a lot less money than the Woodcrest ones. So conventional wisdom says one Quad Woodcrest and the rest Conroe Core 2 Duos. :)
Right, the new form-factor Conroe mini-tower will be a "Mac Amateur" or some other name, not a "Mac Pro".

Of course, Kentsfield will make the mini-tower a quad... :eek:
 
Aiden>

There's virtually no chance that Apple is going to come out with your favorite minitower. Apple, in general, views simplicity as paramount, and just based on that, there's a number of reasons why a minitower makes no sense.

1. For the same reason that putting Conroe and Woodcrest chips in the same Mac Pro line. If it's too expensive to have 2 separate logic boards for the Mac Pro, why would it make sense to have an entirely separate product for this?

2. Apple returned to profitability in the late 90s by *reducing* their product offerings, and they've held that pretty steady for nearly 10 years now. In fact, since they've moved to Intel, they've reduced their product line even further, axing the eMac from the consumer market and reducing the number of different portable offerings from 5 to 3 (4 if you count the black MacBook).

3. Every Apple product has a specific market in mind, and rarely do they overlap in what the product offers. This reduces confusion for customers, and probably more importantly keeps one product line from stealing from another, and reduces costs. If you have 2 high-end desktop systems, and their only differences are that one has slightly more expansion and slightly faster processors and is alot more expensive, why would people even consider purchasing the higher-end product unless they need to max out their PCI slots?

4. There isn't much of a market for PCI cards in Apple systems at this point. The reason Apple relies on 'dongles', as you put it is, again for simplicity's sake- FireWire and USB are a hell of a lot easier to install and configure than PCI cards, and at the time when Apple started going with less expansion (the introduction of the iMac), the market for expansion cards was getting worse, and is still pretty low. I definitely see a renaissance for those cards if Apple sales start to climb, and since OS X/Intel runs on 'standard' intel chipsets and uses EFI, companies like nVidia and ATi are going to be more likely to come out with drivers for OS X and box em with their standard video cards, instead of requiring video cards with a completely different bios to deal with open firmware. Which brings me to my last point...

5. Gamers are the x-factor in all this. It's pretty obvious that Apple came out with Boot Camp when they did to cause some buzz with OS X/Leopard and get gamers salivating about the prospect of running their gaming machine incased in brushed metal goodness. Based on the rumors that Mac Pros are coming out at WWDC and Leopard will ship at the same time as Vista, or before, it's pretty obvious Apple was giving PC gamers a come-hither look. I would certainly agree that the type of machine you are talking about would be of interest to mid-level gamers....folks that play lots of games, but don't throw around high-end Alienware money. So the question becomes if/when Apple targets the gaming market more seriously, what would be the best strategy to do so? Until Apple has more of a 'home-grown' gaming market, ie, they either start developing games themselves or bribe game developers to release games at the same time on OS X as they do Windows (and more importantly, release games that are *exclusive* to OS X, I would say that Apple isn't going to benefit much from diversifying their hardware offerings for gamers.

Whether that happens or not is the lifeblood of mac rumor sites to begin with, I suppose. It's why they exist in the first place. Reading through the scroll here, I think Apple is going to have a harder time with their marketing decisions given Intel's openness in their marketing decisions. I don't think Apple will open up very much, although I think they'll probably have to bump their systems more often to keep up with the Joneses (which certainly isn't a bad thing for Apple watchers who are used to seeing product revs every 12 months instead of, say, every 6 months). It's going to make it harder on Apple in terms of price for performance, especially on the more commodity systems like the Mac Pro. I think Apple will likely acquit themselves pretty well, as they already have with the MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
 
2005-2007 Are Transitional Years For Everyone

boomeringue said:
Aiden>

There's virtually no chance that Apple is going to come out with your favorite minitower. Apple, in general, views simplicity as paramount, and just based on that, there's a number of reasons why a minitower makes no sense.

1. For the same reason that putting Conroe and Woodcrest chips in the same Mac Pro line. If it's too expensive to have 2 separate logic boards for the Mac Pro, why would it make sense to have an entirely separate product for this?
And who said it was too expensive to have 2 separate motherboards for the Mac Pro line? The current PowerMac G5 line has 2 motherboards. While I agree Aiden's dream is a remote possability, it certainly doesn't follow that a single socket Conroe motherboard won't be inside the Core 2 Duo Mac Pros. In fact, in my mind, it mandates that Conroe systems are the ones below the Quad Woodcrest. The age of an All Quad Mac Pro line is still a year away. 2005-2007 are transitional years in which 4 cores are still a novelty at the top end only. When we get to 2008, then the whole Pro line and even the top of Mobility will contain 4 cores.
boomeringue said:
2. Apple returned to profitability in the late 90s by *reducing* their product offerings, and they've held that pretty steady for nearly 10 years now. In fact, since they've moved to Intel, they've reduced their product line even further, axing the eMac from the consumer market and reducing the number of different portable offerings from 5 to 3 (4 if you count the black MacBook).
Gotta keep thinking transitional years. No way to judge "normality" before WWDC 2007 when the transition can be declared complete after Leopard and Core 2 Duo and its Quad successors are fully deployed.
boomeringue said:
3. Every Apple product has a specific market in mind, and rarely do they overlap in what the product offers. This reduces confusion for customers, and probably more importantly keeps one product line from stealing from another, and reduces costs. If you have 2 high-end desktop systems, and their only differences are that one has slightly more expansion and slightly faster processors and is alot more expensive, why would people even consider purchasing the higher-end product unless they need to max out their PCI slots?
I agree.
boomeringue said:
4. There isn't much of a market for PCI cards in Apple systems at this point. The reason Apple relies on 'dongles', as you put it is, again for simplicity's sake- FireWire and USB are a hell of a lot easier to install and configure than PCI cards, and at the time when Apple started going with less expansion (the introduction of the iMac), the market for expansion cards was getting worse, and is still pretty low. I definitely see a renaissance for those cards if Apple sales start to climb, and since OS X/Intel runs on 'standard' intel chipsets and uses EFI, companies like nVidia and ATi are going to be more likely to come out with drivers for OS X and box em with their standard video cards, instead of requiring video cards with a completely different bios to deal with open firmware.
Let us pray this happens.
boomeringue said:
Which brings me to my last point... 5. Gamers are the x-factor in all this. It's pretty obvious that Apple came out with Boot Camp when they did to cause some buzz with OS X/Leopard and get gamers salivating about the prospect of running their gaming machine incased in brushed metal goodness. Based on the rumors that Mac Pros are coming out at WWDC and Leopard will ship at the same time as Vista, or before, it's pretty obvious Apple was giving PC gamers a come-hither look. I would certainly agree that the type of machine you are talking about would be of interest to mid-level gamers....folks that play lots of games, but don't throw around high-end Alienware money. So the question becomes if/when Apple targets the gaming market more seriously, what would be the best strategy to do so? Until Apple has more of a 'home-grown' gaming market, ie, they either start developing games themselves or bribe game developers to release games at the same time on OS X as they do Windows (and more importantly, release games that are *exclusive* to OS X, I would say that Apple isn't going to benefit much from diversifying their hardware offerings for gamers.
Wow! I was with you until point 5 which I find to be based in some sort of Parallel Universe where gamers care about what OS they are shooting up in. Please. You can forget about games exclusive to OS X unless the publisher is suicidal.
boomeringue said:
Whether that happens or not is the lifeblood of mac rumor sites to begin with, I suppose. It's why they exist in the first place.
Only in your Parallel Universe. :rolleyes:
boomeringue said:
Reading through the scroll here, I think Apple is going to have a harder time with their marketing decisions given Intel's openness in their marketing decisions. I don't think Apple will open up very much, although I think they'll probably have to bump their systems more often to keep up with the Joneses (which certainly isn't a bad thing for Apple watchers who are used to seeing product revs every 12 months instead of, say, every 6 months).
Another Parallel Universe moment. Apple refreshes their lines about every 6 months and has done for years. Again, we are in a transitional moment in which longer refresh times from PPC to Core Duo and quickly on to Core 2 Duo are highly irregular.
boomeringue said:
It's going to make it harder on Apple in terms of price for performance, especially on the more commodity systems like the Mac Pro. I think Apple will likely acquit themselves pretty well, as they already have with the MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
All they've done to date is jump the gun with this Core Duo 32-bit patch that allows them a way to speed bump the anemic G4-5 line of Consumer and Mobiles at the consumer's long term expense. But I don't want to get nasty. :) We have a happy healthy minority of MacIntel owners present.

Did you notice the results of the survey of MacRumors members on what they are driving today? It's 76% PPC and 20% Intel. Gee I wonder why? Could it be that the majority here has half a brain? Or are we unaware that this is a transitional year? I better stop. I could turn this post into a rant and I don't really want to do that. :p
 
Ugh, I can't believe I'm responding but there are a couple of items that need to be set straight. Not that Aiden will understand them or accept them, but at least other readers should know how it really works.

AidenShaw said:
Or, one could read your docs and take them to mean that the EFER.LME is the mode bit.

I never said that the "mode bit" was automatic - the process mode bit is a marker for the scheduler to "do the right thing". It takes a few instructions for the scheduler to "honor" the process mode bit.

Grasping at straws now aren't you? Anything to try to claim you're still right. The fact is that switching the mode of the processor works nothing like you described it, if you'd have read the AMD documents then you would understand this.

You described it as a "per-process mode bit" and this is wrong. The processor can either run in Legacy mode or Long mode, it cannot have various different processes/threads running, some in Legacy mode and others in Long mode. When the processor is in a given mode, everything on the processor must be running in that mode. In order to switch modes everything in the current mode - page tables, global descriptor tables (GDT), local descriptor tables (LDT), interrupt descriptor tables (IDT), exception handlers, code descriptors, data-segment descriptors, etc. - must be stopped, their context saved and then the data structures for the new mode must be loaded. In other words, everything the processor requires to run must be saved for the current mode then loaded for the new mode. It's similar to turning the processor off, switching the mode, and then turning it back on.

This is really only useful for an application such as VMware that virtualizes a separate operating environment where performance is expected to be slower than native and data-sharing/communication between the two modes is not required. It's not at all feasible for an environment such as Tiger's 64-bit support that requires 100%-native performance and extensive data-sharing/communication. If it were feasible then you can be sure that Apple would implement it for the version of Tiger that will be running on the new Mac Pros - it's not and they won't.

AidenShaw said:
And it's something that Windows x64 does constantly as you run a mix of 32-bit applications, 64-bit application, and the 64-bit OS. No one has noticed any performance problems due to the "complex and resource intensive" switch.

Wrong again. Windows x64 does not do this at all, if you would read the AMD documentation then you would understand this. Windows x64 (and other 64-bit OSs that support x86-64) run completely in Long mode (64-bit mode). Long mode supports two types of operation 1) Compatibility and 2) 64-bit. Compatibility operation is where it runs unmodified, legacy 32-bit (and 16-bit) applications. 64-bit operation is where it runs new 64-bit applications that utilize the larger 64-bit address space and the additional 64-bit registers.

Because Long mode supports both 32-bit and 64-bit applications there is no need for the slow and complex mode switches between Long mode and Legacy mode.

AidenShaw said:
My main point, however, is that it *is* possible for a 32-bit operating system to run 64-bit tasks.

And your main point is still fundamentally flawed and wrong. Basically your argument is analogous to someone claiming that PPC Macs can natively run Windows applications and then pointing to VirtualPC as the proof. Never mind that VirtualPC emulates instructions and VMware can run many instructions natively, this is basically what your argument is. It doesn't matter to you that the only way for a 32-bit OS to run the processor in 64-bit mode is through a virtual machine running a 64-bit operating system with less than native performance. But your mind is already made up and nothing I nor anyone else will say will change it. Hopefully others that read this thread will now understand the real issues involved.

AidenShaw said:
The corollary to that point is that Microsoft already had a 64-bit version of Windows, no there was no need for a hybrid 32/64 bit effort - although it would have been possible, it was unnecessary.

If it were possible then you can bet that Microsoft would have done it. Microsoft is obsessed with backwards compatibility and if they could have created a 32-bit/64-bit hybrid OS such as Tiger (only with complete 64-bit libraries) that doesn't require any driver rewrites or yet another Windows code-base then they surely would have done it. As it is now they have yet another version of Windows (Windows x64) that they have to support and that requires completely new drivers for everything.

As AMD states repeatedly in their documentation, Long mode requires a 64-bit operating system. So you can either believe Aiden and his weak VMware virtual machine argument (which still requires a 64-bit OS) or you can believe AMD. I'll let the readers decide.

That's it for me on this thread, I'm out.
 
kuwan said:
Ugh, I can't believe I'm responding but there are a couple of items that need to be set straight. Not that Aiden will understand them or accept them, but at least other readers should know how it really works.

Well, I wish you would have held off on responding. I'm one reader who is getting tired of seeing 64bit discussion on this thread. I wish you would stay on topic or open a new thread. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad, but your posts are too long and I've got to scroll through them looking for something relative to the thread. Perhaps you can move to the software forum?
 
AidenShaw said:
It often requires an update to the firmware (BIOS/EFI) to properly recognize new chips.


So the upcoming MacBookPro upgrade to meroms or the people upgrading their MacMiniSolos to Duos can not be used as reference?
Is the core amount more difficult subject to the bios/efi to handle than the change of FSB speed or 32-to-64 bittness?
Will the woodies keep their FSB speed in the transition to clovertons, or will it change? How does that affect the FD-Dimm memory settings,or will it affect them at all?




AidenShaw said:
It may require operating system support for 8 CPUs, as well.

What is the situation with 10.4.x?Can it handle more than 4 cores atm?


It would be quite safe to think that the upcoming Leotard will support multiple (8-16-32?) core support, as the first 4 core Clovertowns will come out at the same time?
I guess no company can be that stupid on not supporting multiple core-multiple soccet solutions in their OSs at this point.




Oh, and last question.


How do you guys see the Conroe 2.93 EE fitting into Apples repertoire?
As it is the only conroe that doesnt have locked mhz and can be overclocked, will apple cater the Tinkers&Tuners,say, by releasing the MacTowerTM containing it?
I know apple has not supported peoples tinkering in the past,but now?
 
since when did the woodcrest start being refered to as a "woodie"? It's kind of gross and juvenile.
 
wwworry said:
since when did the woodcrest start being refered to as a "woodie"? It's kind of gross and juvenile.

About ten posts ago.

Do you have problems watching Woody Harrelson in the films and is your fireplace is sad and empty because you can´t chop wood for it?
 
Conroe in Macs?

risc said:
Is the Conroe even capable of doing SMP? A single dual core Conroe versus a dual dual core G5... I wonder which will be faster? :rolleyes:

Nope. Conroe is a single cpu processor. It's effectively the P4 replacement.

If Apple is going to do a "quad", it's going to have to be Woodcrest.

Personally, I think the "Mac Pro" and the XServe will both be Woodcrest, and both will be released in single-cpu (dual core) and two-cpu (quad core) versions.

Additionally, I think the iMac will get either Merom or Conroe upgrade. Equally, the MBP will go to Merom at some point.

I still think there's a space in the Apple line-up for a "business class" box:
headless with a Conoe cpu. I can't see a space for a new eMac though...:eek:
 
Macinposh said:
Do you have problems watching Woody Harrelson in the films and is your fireplace is sad and empty because you can´t chop wood for it?
It's also a fond term for a wood-trimmed station wagon

B00004YUVL.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
,

although more recent woodies have plastic trim to prevent ravages from Woody Woodpecker.

200px-Birddinner02.jpg


Or Woody Allen, Woody Guthrie, Sheriff Woody or many others.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
TangoCharlie said:
Nope. Conroe is a single cpu processor. It's effectively the P4 replacement.

If Apple is going to do a "quad", it's going to have to be Woodcrest.
Yes, it does SMP - it has to.

Conroe is a dual-CPU (dual-core) chip. You have to have an SMP-enabled operating system to manage the two CPU cores. It is almost indistinquishable from a two single core chips in two sockets at the operating system level.

For a single core chip, "core", "CPU" and "processor" mean the same thing. A dual-core chip has two "processors", "cores" or "CPUs". A "core" is everything that you've always considered to be the visible CPU. (Things like cache are invisible implementation details.)

There's a terminology problem - what term do you use for the package, vs. for the active processor? Intel has chosen to use "processor" to refer to a package containing multiple cores - primarily for licensing reasons. This is completely independent of the use of the term "processor" in "Simultaneous Multi-Processing". In "SMP" the term "processor" is the same as a "core".


TangoCharlie said:
If Apple is going to do a "quad", it's going to have to be Woodcrest....
I still think there's a space in the Apple line-up for a "business class" box:
headless with a Conoe cpu. I can't see a space for a new eMac though...:eek:
This year, a quad will have to be a Woodcrest.

Next year, Kentsfield will be out. It's a quad-core (4 CPU) chip that is in the Conroe family. It should drop into a Conroe motherboard.

I also see the place for a new form-factor Conroe mini-tower. One with a x16 PCIe graphics slot, room for a second 3.5" disk or second optical, and more memory.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.