Xserve July, Mac Pro (PowerMac) in August?

[kuwan]

64-bit transition...

I'm surprised that no one seems to be talking about the pending 64-bit transition that will be coming with the new PowerMac line (Mac Pro line).

There are a lot of issues that Apple will need to work out with the new Core 2 processors (Conroe, Memron, Woodcrest, etc.). The Core 2 line of CPUs are all going to be 64-bit processors, the problem that Apple has is that they don't have a 64-bit operating system to run them on. Tiger is basically a 32-bit OS and Leopard is only going to be previewed at WWDC. This means that if they are going to be shipping Mac Pros at WWDC then they will be running in 32-bit mode on Tiger. Here are some of the issues:

• Benchmarks that have been run on Core 2 CPUs have mainly been in 64-bit mode.
• x86-64 (or EM64T as Intel calls it) has twice as many registers when running in 64-bit mode than it does in 32-bit mode. This means that 64-bit code can be much faster than 32-bit code.
• When running in 32-bit mode on x86-64 you cannot take advantage of any of the CPU's 64-bit improvements (additional registers, larger address space, etc.).
• Apple will only have a 32-bit OS (Tiger) when the Mac Pros ship, meaning that they won't be able to fully take advantage of the Core 2 CPUs.
• Even though you can install more you probably will only be able to use up to 4 GB of RAM on the new Mac Pros, at least until Leopard ships next year.
• Lastly, there will be yet another transition for users and developers to go through, from 32-bit to 64-bit.

Considering Apple hasn't said a word to developers about their future 64-bit plans on Intel then it means that it will probably be a long time before we see 64-bit applications that can fully take advantage of the new CPUs.

 

[AidenShaw]

• Even though you can install more you probably will only be able to use up to 4 GB of RAM on the new Mac Pros, at least until Leopard ships next year.

Intel and AMD chips support up to 64 GiB of RAM even in 32-bit mode - 32-bit Linux and 32-bit Windows Server operating systems do this all the time. This support goes back long before x64 was introduced. (Actually, the PPC G4 also supports 64 GiB of RAM in most models.)

You are right to question whether OSX 10.4 will support the feature, but the 4 GiB limit won't be due to any hardware restriction associated with running in 32-bit mode.

 

[Platform]

The new MacPro.

Give us something more advanced than a G4...

 

[Platform]

1. licensing software might decide to treat a group of CPUs as a single CPU - as in hyper-threading or multi-core. For example, XP Home won't run SMP on a dual-socket machine - but it does run SMP with HT or dual-core.
2. When an architecture is non-symmetric, scheduling and memory management might optimize based on the system topology.

But "processor" is just a name. A "core" is a complete processor (or CPU) in the classic sense - it just happens to share a piece of silicon with another processor/CPU/core. Intel calls the chip a "processor", but that's mainly for licensing reasons (a "single processor" license covers a "chip with 2 CPUs").

Why is the quad PMG5 called a "quad" and not a "twin"? Easy - it has 4 CPUs, or 4 processors, or 4 cores. It has 4 times the potential of a single chip with one core (where we all agree that "CPU", "core" and "processor" all mean the same thing).

Hyper-Threading and dual-core require SMP to be turned on in the operating system - otherwise there would be no way to control two separate hardware threads.

A pair of single-core chips and a single dual-core chip are both SMP capable systems -- you have to use a multi-processor operating system for them.

To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing

"The most popular entry level SMP systems use the x86 instruction set architecture and are based on Intel’s Xeon, Pentium D and Core Duo processors or AMD’s Athlon64 X2 or Opteron 200 series processors."​

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html

"Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent."​

Don't confuse cores with processors with CPUs with sockets.

For the operating system software, for the most part "core" == "processor" == "CPU". Two exceptions

1. For licensing purposes, the number of processors might be reduced. For example, XP Home won't run SMP on a dual-socket machine, but it does enable SMP for Hyper-Threaded or Dual-Core systems.
2. If the architecture is not symmetric (non-uniform), scheduling and memory routines might optimize based on the actual topology.

The OS usually doesn't need to worry about "sockets" (unless you're doing TCP/IP programming).

This person knows what they are talking about, listen while you can...great reasons/referances as ever

 

[novagamer]

Do you think they will do anything with the Core 2 Extreme?


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2625

No. It's 2.93ghz, and It's $999, which is absurdly more expensive than the $800-850 (depending on what roadmap you look at) 3ghz Core Based Xeon coming out (woodcrest).

I can't believe intel has a faster xeon than their extreme edition processor, and in addition it's actually cheaper. Crazy.

I'm anticipating that there will be a $3499 dual 3ghz (quad core) Mac Pro released at WWDC, along with possibly lower end versions of them at $1999/2499, or else Conroe based core duo parts at similar prices.

If they try to pass off the extreme edition processor in a pro machine it will be a joke. Intel was going to have a new type of hyperthreading in the extreme edition cpus called HT2, but that got scrapped for the time being as they already have such an enormous performance lead with regards to AMD, at least on the desktop space.

Also, don't forget the verbal impact when Steve can finally say "We're a bit late, but we now have a mac at 3GHz." That alone makes it pretty likely.

 

[Core Trio]

I tell you what, if they do that then i'll be chucking £1500 at my PC in preperation for Vista.

I will only "switch" when a high end mac is out, due to Flight Simulator and the new version flight sim X.

I'll need a directX 10 GPU or the option to upgrade to a dx10 GPU.

If we get to mid Aug and still no high end mac then i'll just upgrade my PC to a conroe cpu and top of the range DX10 GPU.

Sorry if you misunderstood, i wasnt saying it wouldnt out until 2007, I was using that information to discredit the post above me that said the Mac Pro's would be out when Adobe goes universal

 

[jholzner]

I'm surprised that no one seems to be talking about the pending 64-bit transition that will be coming with the new PowerMac line (Mac Pro line).

There are a lot of issues that Apple will need to work out with the new Core 2 processors (Conroe, Memron, Woodcrest, etc.). The Core 2 line of CPUs are all going to be 64-bit processors, the problem that Apple has is that they don't have a 64-bit operating system to run them on. Tiger is basically a 32-bit OS and Leopard is only going to be previewed at WWDC. This means that if they are going to be shipping Mac Pros at WWDC then they will be running in 32-bit mode on Tiger. Here are some of the issues:

• Benchmarks that have been run on Core 2 CPUs have mainly been in 64-bit mode.
• x86-64 (or EM64T as Intel calls it) has twice as many registers when running in 64-bit mode than it does in 32-bit mode. This means that 64-bit code can be much faster than 32-bit code.
• When running in 32-bit mode on x86-64 you cannot take advantage of any of the CPU's 64-bit improvements (additional registers, larger address space, etc.).
• Apple will only have a 32-bit OS (Tiger) when the Mac Pros ship, meaning that they won't be able to fully take advantage of the Core 2 CPUs.
• Even though you can install more you probably will only be able to use up to 4 GB of RAM on the new Mac Pros, at least until Leopard ships next year.
• Lastly, there will be yet another transition for users and developers to go through, from 32-bit to 64-bit.

Considering Apple hasn't said a word to developers about their future 64-bit plans on Intel then it means that it will probably be a long time before we see 64-bit applications that can fully take advantage of the new CPUs.

Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.

 

[^squirrel^]

Sorry if you misunderstood, i wasnt saying it wouldnt out until 2007, I was using that information to discredit the post above me that said the Mac Pro's would be out when Adobe goes universal

Oh sorry (egg on my face)

Everyone is talking about these Macpro CPU's but what do you think the GPU will be? This would be a major factor for me to switch.

 

[Core Trio]

Oh sorry (egg on my face)

Everyone is talking about these Macpro CPU's but what do you think the GPU will be? This would be a major factor for me to switch.

Sadly thats a much tougher call to make as apple does not have an exclusive deal with ati or nvidia as they do with intel, but id imagine, if apple is going for a high performance workstation they will go with a high end GPU, and possibly a BTO otption for the best of the best (at the moment as these damn GPUs get outdated seemingly faster than any other computer component out there)

 

[darrens]

After Steve Jobs announced that every Mac should have the word Mac in the name and XServes are Macs, what might they be called?

A few suggestions:

Mac Serve(r)
xMac
Mac X
RackMac
Mac Pro X

Any other ideas?

I think it's unlikely Apple will want to put Mac in the name of a product that's basically a UNIX server. In that market, I doubt it's a plus to highlight the fact the server is a Mac.

 

[darrens]

Everyone is talking about these Macpro CPU's but what do you think the GPU will be? This would be a major factor for me to switch.

Isn't the answer to this "whatever you want to put in it"? Sure it ships with a graphics card, but you can rip it out and replace it if you want, some PC gamers seem to replace their graphics card more often than the rest of their rig.

 

[jeremy.king]

I wonder if Apple will consider offering other OSes with the new Xserve/MacServe...

Solaris x86? Windows Server 2003? OS X Server? Suse? RHEL?

Opens up a HUGE bag of worms from a support perspective, but would definitely let them penetrate corporate USA...

 

[iGary]

And if steve says that the new Mac Pros are 4x as fast as my Quad, I'm going to go down to Cupertino and punch him in the face.

I'll go with you.

 

[devman]

Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.

That's not true for Intel. The move to 64bit on Intel also comprises other architectural changes (e.g. registers to name just one) that do yield a speed improvement. 20% I think - although that is from my memory - I might be wrong about the exact percentage.

 

[AidenShaw]

...but would definitely let them penetrate corporate USA...

Doubt it.

The x86 server business is pretty solid.

You have a lot of low priced "white box" manufacturers like SuperMicro and Appro that way undercut the Xserve price with similar features.

You have the top tier manufacturers like HP, IBM and Dell that provide more features for the same price as Apple. Or many more features for a higher price. (ILO, RAID memory, SCSI, embedded hardware RAID with large battery-backed cache, diagnostics, remote control, redundant redundancy...)

Both the top and bottom have wide product lines (1U/2U/3U/4U/5U/7U/blades...) with single/dual/quad and even octo and higher socket.

Simply putting Xeons into the Xserve won't open many new doors for Apple.

 

[danr_97070]

Ah, if the Mac Pro would use AMD...

ThinkSecret reports that they have heard that Xserve will take advantage of Intel's upcoming Woodcrest processor. Woodcrest is Intel's successor to the current "Xeon" server-targeted processors. There had been reports that the Woodcrest family of processors would be making it into "Macintosh workstations" as early as 3rd quarter. Indeed, Woodcrest, is expected in June of this year, with the rumor site expecting the Intel Xserve to follow in July.

Meanwhile, PowerMac revisions (Mac Pros) are expected to make the transition to the recently announced Core 2 Duo processors (codenamed Conroe). These processors are expected in July.

ThinkSecret speculates that the PowerMac revisions would come at WWDC, and indeed, MacRumors has received confirmation Intel PowerMac revisions ("Mac Pros") are to be announced at the WWDC Keynote which takes place Aug 7-11, 2006.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1970271,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

 

[Multimedia]

Really? They Must Have Rocket Scientists Over At Think Secret!

Really? They Must Have Rocket Scientists Over At Think Secret!

Where's the Woodcrest Quad Prediction? Chickens!

 

[BJNY]

I'd like an Xserve RAID using SATA hard drives connecting via eSATA or MultiLane Infiniband, and I'd like an Xserve Mini (same height and depth as the RAID) with a Woodcrest CPU.

 

[^squirrel^]

Isn't the answer to this "whatever you want to put in it"? Sure it ships with a graphics card, but you can rip it out and replace it if you want, some PC gamers seem to replace their graphics card more often than the rest of their rig.

I dont think you'll be bale to do that. I pretty sure if Apple go with ATi lets say, then it'l only be a certain model as there would be driver issues for OSX.

As far as Windows on a MacPro then i guess it wouldnt matter what card you use, as all the drivers are available for XP.

 

[AidenShaw]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1970271,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

Sounds a lot like a dual Woodcrest, to me....

 

[ChrisA]

Tiger is basically a 32-bit OS and Leopard is only going to be previewed at WWDC. This means that if they are going to be shipping Mac Pros at WWDC then they will be running in 32-bit mode on Tiger. Here are some of the issues:

it will probably be a long time before we see 64-bit applications that can fully take advantage of the new CPUs.

The last statment may be true. But how do you know about the first? How do you know the size of the pointers in the kernel's internal data structures? I would asume that Tiger/PPC and Tiger/Intel share almost all the same source code. We don't know for sure because Apple has not realeaes Darwin kernel source for Intel but we can look at BSD UNIX onm which Darwin is based

Going back to the last stament. It could be that applications will run in a 32-bit user land and therefore be limited to 4GB RAM per application But is that so bad?

From a software devaloper's point of view I'd like to see all platforms become 64-bit in userland. Then if (say) I was writing a video edit application I could map ALL of the media clips into the address space and let the virtual memory system worry about bufferring the files into and out of physical RAM. But with 32-bits the programmer has to do this himself. But does an end user care much? I'm not sure but I think on the Mac quicktime hides this from the developer and he can just deal with frames. So really it's only the dvelopers at Apple and that should care much.

Many heavy duty proceses like a DBMS us a "process per client" model so a DBMS could have 4GB of address space per connected client

 

[Multimedia]

4 Cores Is Minimum By 2008

Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.

As one Quad owner who sees the benefit of 4 cores with so-called 32-bit applications like Toast and Handbrake - both of which can use more than 3 cores each, I don't understand what's what in the 32-bit vs 64-bit realms. But I do know that 4 cores is way faster than two cores when it comes to multitasking and multiprocessing and simultaneously recording, encoding and transcoding video from HDTV to DVD Images to MP4 files. It's not very scientific nor professional - in fact it's downright mundane consumer electronics type stuff. But I really need 8-16 cores running 3GHz each please. This kind of "work" takes way too long to do right now. I would like to complete this kind of process in about 10 seconds per transcode please instead of real time. It is incredibly boringly slow right now.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1970271,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

They call it 4x4 but it's really 2x2 and like Alden says, "Sounds a lot like a dual Woodcrest, to me...." No biggie. IE The first Apple Quad Intel - star of the August 7 SteveNote.

 

[kuwan]

Well, the G5 is already a 64 bit CPU so it's not a HUGE transition. True, the OS isn't fully 64 bit native and most apps are 32 bit but converting all apps to 64 bit in most cases will not give a speed improvement anyway.

This is true for PPC but as devman pointed out, with x86-64 you have twice as many registers when running in 64-bit mode. This can lead to significant performance improvements, far greater than 20%. Some applications can see up to a 2x performance improvement.

Apps like MS Office or Safari wouldn't see much benefit but Pro apps such as Photoshop, Final Cut, etc. would likely benefit greatly by running 64-bit on Intel.

Another problem is that drivers will need to be rewritten to support a 64-bit OS X.

 

[ChrisA]

I'd like an Xserve RAID using SATA hard drives connecting via eSATA or MultiLane Infiniband, and I'd like an Xserve Mini (same height and depth as the RAID) with a Woodcrest CPU.

I think you are onto something there. Build a chasis with bays that can accept either a disk drive (inside a box) or an "CPU modual" inside the same shape box. Many people have found that for servers you don't need tons of processing power. What's needed is tons of I/O bandwidth. Using many smaller processor works better then fewer larger ones because with each CPU monual you also add one more ethernet controller, disk interface and "frontside bus"

But I don't think Mac OSX is setup to take advantage on this. Sound more like what you'd want to use to run Solaris or possably Linux

 

[kuwan]

The last statment may be true. But how do you know about the first? How do you know the size of the pointers in the kernel's internal data structures?

Read Apple's 64-bit porting guide (note that this is only for PPC 64-bit support):

Because 64-bit applications will be supported using a 32-bit kernel...

Before we go further, it is important to dispel a few common misconceptions.

Myth #2:

Myth: The kernel needs to be 64 bit in order to be fully G5-optimized.
Fact: The kernel never needs to directly address more than 4 GB of RAM at once. The kernel is able to make larger amounts of memory available to applications by simply using long long data types to keep track of mappings internally.
​

If you do read the entire article keep in mind that much of this does not apply to x86-64.

In order to support x86-64 Apple will need a 64-bit kernel because you cannot run 64-bit apps on a 32-bit kernel like you can with PPC. With x86-64 the kernel needs to be 64-bit in order to run 64-bit applications.

So what we're likely to get at WWDC is Mac Pros running Tiger with a 64-bit transition guide for Leopard.