Does it matter what the kernel uses?ChrisA said:
If the entire system uses 64-bit pointers, then it's clearly a 64-bit system.
If a tiny piece uses 64-bit pointers, and the rest is 32-bit - it's not truly a 64-bit system.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Xserve July, Mac Pro (PowerMac) in August?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the entire system uses 64-bit pointers, then it's clearly a 64-bit system.
If a tiny piece uses 64-bit pointers, and the rest is 32-bit - it's not truly a 64-bit system.
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?
Conroe.
longofest said:
I think that would be insanely unlikely. I'll be happy if they have a model that's even a little faster than the current quads. The quads will have the smallest improvement going to intel, no question about it. I assume it would take four cores of intel to match a quad G5, anyone know for sure?
macgeek2005 said:
They're not putting G5 in the towers. No friggin way. Are they crazy? That CPU will be in cheap iMacs!!!
Hector said:
I don't think that makes any sense at all. I don't think woodcrest will be in ALL towers, but there's no point in doing single woodcrest, and I doubt apple will only ship quad configs of the tower, the starting price would be way too expensive. Single chip conroe (dual core) on the low towers, dual woodcrest (four cores) on the high end tower. I'd love to see a budget small tower with a couple slots and drive bays as well.
sam10685 said:
Seriously? You think two cores of conroe will be faster than four cores of G5? What makes you think that? Considering a core duo is about the same speed as a similarly clocked dual G5, the conroes would have to be double the speed of the core duo. Are they?
milo said:
Not really read below
milo said:
Very well said , ignore Hector he just dosen't want to see his shiny new Mac Pro get Trashed by guys like me who build custom PC's and overclock them to hell.
milo said:
I have been saying this all week and the macmonkeys still do not understand that single cpu woodcrest is not an option as is cost more and offers no advantage over conroe.
milo said:
Actually Core 1 runs the same speed as the G5 , Core 2 runs atleast 20% faster clock 4 clock , if u base this on Conore vs AMD64. It is pretty well know that AMD 64 and the G5 core even clock 4 clock. so you have your comparison.
so for argument sake lets measure this:
G5 @ 2.5ghz + 20% = 3.0ghz
Conroe @ 3ghz + 20%(the improvement over G5) = 3.6ghz
So the G5 would need to be clocked at 3.6ghz to match this CPU's perfromance.
so then the question is would you rather take two 3.6ghz G5's or 4 2.5ghz G5's? ...personally i'd the the two 3.6's
Core 2 Extreme(X6800) runs at 2.93ghz and will jump to 3.2ghz(X6900) in nov-dec then the 3.33ghz 1333FSB Monster comes out in Feb so this gap will only increase.
If the top end MacPro will contin dual woodcrest @3.0ghz then the Quad G5 will get destroyed in every benchmark.
so enough bitching about Conore you guys are getting much more then IBM or Moto would have ever given you cry babies.
Woodcrest Is Only For Quads - Conroe Is For Dual Core Little Brothers
Why do you assume none of us know that? I thought everyone undestood that Conroe is the single Core 2 Duo processor and that the expensive Woodcrest is only for the Quads because it is the only one that can run in pairs.
Are you saying that none of us understand that Woodcrest is only for Quads and that Conroe is the dual core processor for the rest of the top of the line Mac Pros? 'Cause I am one who did and does.
But why would you want two 3.6 GHz Conroe Cores instead of four 2.5 GHz G5s in the Quad G5? I find multitasking while crushing video to be completely problematic with the dual core 2.5 G5 while totally working on the G5 Quad. I would never revert to two cores ever again except in the mobile Merom @2.33GHz.
Well this MacMonkey has understood that for many months since Alden Shaw explained it to those of us who were paying ATTENTION way back in JANUARY in about 25 different posts.jiggie2g said:
Duh! You don't have to get rude about it. Who are the "Bitch People"?jiggie2g said:
Why do you assume none of us know that? I thought everyone undestood that Conroe is the single Core 2 Duo processor and that the expensive Woodcrest is only for the Quads because it is the only one that can run in pairs.
Are you saying that none of us understand that Woodcrest is only for Quads and that Conroe is the dual core processor for the rest of the top of the line Mac Pros? 'Cause I am one who did and does.
But why would you want two 3.6 GHz Conroe Cores instead of four 2.5 GHz G5s in the Quad G5? I find multitasking while crushing video to be completely problematic with the dual core 2.5 G5 while totally working on the G5 Quad. I would never revert to two cores ever again except in the mobile Merom @2.33GHz.
Multimedia said:Well this MacMonkey has understood that for many months since Alden Shaw explained it to those of us who were paying ATTENTION way back in JANUARY in about 25 different posts.
I didn't mean "Bitch people" as u can see i edited my post to correct this , as i ment bitching. While you and AidenShaw may have known this since Jan it seems most of your mac bothers and sister still are subborn to want to understand and just want Woodcrest becuase it's a "SERVER CLASS" cpu reguardless of price or perfomance.
Multimedia said:Why do you assume none of us know that. I thought everyone undestood that Conroe is the single Core 2 Duo processor and that Woodcrest is only for the Quads because it is the only one that can run in pairs.
Are you saying that none of us understand that Woodcrest is only for Quads and that Conroe is the dual core processor for the rest of the top of the line Mac Pros? 'Cause I am one who did and does.
Have you even been reading some of the mindless post that have been up here in the past week. "I want Conore in my iMac" , "I want Woodcrest in all the G5's" not realizing that alot of thses option do not make any sense technically or financially.
Why would you want a hotter chip in an iMac when u can just swap your old one for a merom. some people here are still arguing that Woodcreast will kill conore clock 4 clock and that core 2 is 40% faster then core 1.
Multimedia said:
For the same reason when the dual 2ghz G5 was 1st introduced in 2003 and Jobs made that stupid claim about it being the fastest PC in the world. Then a few weeks later it got trashed in almost every benchmark by single core high clocked P4's and Athlons FX's.
I said that a 3.0ghz Conore = 3.6ghz G5 now if i had (2) 3.6gz Conroe cores as i may very well have after i OC my E6600 then I will have the equivalent of (2) 4.3ghz G5's , you tell me after this u still want your Quad G5.
, my reason in this is for evey other non multi-threaded app such as games , and a million other Things will benifit more from the high clock spped then extra cores.
Job's is the freakin' Karl Rove of the Tech Industry. Spin Master / Bull**** Artist Extraordinaire. Don't worry i still hate Gates even more.
Multimedia said:
Amen!
I would NEVER go back to two cores again either after using the Quad. I can jam out projects using Final Cut, Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Excel & Word (for Admin), Bridge, Flash Player, Art Dir. Toolkit, Etc in ways I NEVER could on a dual core.
The Quad is a multi-tasking BEAST of productivity in this area. I am SO delighted I have been taking advantage of these performance gains for the past 7 months. And all with software that runs pretty great RIGHT NOW.
Of course, I'll upgrade in 6 to 9 months after the bugs are worked out. By then my Quad Core G5 will have more than paid for itself.
DJO.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
Will someone at MR please let us know what sort of confirmation was received about this story? I know this has been asked before, but it doesn't seem to have been answered.
If it's just "unnamed sources close to Apple" or something similar, that's fine, but it would be good to have some indication. "Confirmed" by itself seems like a strong word to use unless there was some official statement either by someone at Apple or some other very strong indication (off-the-record remarks by someone at or close to Apple, etc.).
Thanks.
If it's just "unnamed sources close to Apple" or something similar, that's fine, but it would be good to have some indication. "Confirmed" by itself seems like a strong word to use unless there was some official statement either by someone at Apple or some other very strong indication (off-the-record remarks by someone at or close to Apple, etc.).
Thanks.
jiggie2g said:
It is obvious you have never used a Quad Core in a multi-tasking battle against the clock. I would bet big that the Quad would destroy a Dual Core 3.6 Gig Conroe especially under new releases of OSX. If you run a Quad with activity monitor open you'll see that the four processors REALLY shine in application switching.
If I am running a 3D render that takes 8 minutes on the Quad and your dual core conroe cuts it down to 5, lets say, that is 5 minutes where your box is still clogged up pretty good. With the Quad, I can immediately start the render, and move to Photoshop to process a very large 750MB image, or open a 200 page full color book spread in InDesign, or RIP 40 EPS book pages to SWF through Illustrator WITH NO NOTICABLE SLOWDOWN whatsoever. NONE.
The power is fantastic.
My bet is on the Quad for Sure. My dual 2.5 gig cannot even play at this level of multitasking. Not at all.
DJO
jiggie2g said:
Why? Based on the results I've seen, an app that's well optimized for multiple cores will run better on the quad. A 45% increase in speed per core isn't going to beat a 100% increase in number of cores, unless you're running an app that isn't using the other cores well.
And the apps I'm running DO take advantage of the quad. Apple needs to ship a machine that outperforms the quad across the board, not just on apps that don't use the other cores. You don't really make the case that a dual core machine will be able to do that.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
Peace said:
I realize MacRumors may not want to name the source(s) or get too close to indicating who the source(s) is affiliated with. In such cases though, it is common procedure in the media to say "unnamed sources familiar with [x]" or "a source who spoke on condition of anonymity".
Saying something has been confirmed without any indication of who has confirmed it is meaningless. Otherwise I could ask my cousin Vern if Steve Jobs will be named CEO of Microsoft next Tuesday, and then when Vern says "Yep!" I could write a news story saying it has been "confirmed" that Steve Jobs will be Microsoft's new CEO...
I've been reading MR for years and they usually do this, I think it was just an oversight this time.
Conroe Benchmarks
For those who like to read, this article from ExtremeTech:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970201,00.asp
For those who like to read, this article from ExtremeTech:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970201,00.asp
javierbds said:
Apple is not going to want you to upgrade your computer. They want you to buy a new one...especially if it's a consumer product. Expecting to keep an iMac or Mini current beyond 3 years is not profitable for Apple. Especially at that price point. Why someone would be worried about keeping cheap computer current beyond 3 years defies my comprehension. Perhaps they need to get a part-time job?
jiggie2g said:
Really? the Conroe closest to 3ghz will be the 2.93 Extreme Edition, which if I remember my prices right is MORE expensive than the 3ghz Woodcrest.
Hector said:
Using Woodcrest over Conroe in a single (dual core) serves little purpose other than to cost more. The only use for Woodcrest besides server, is in dual chip configuration (Quad), but that would cost a lot of money. We "might" see a Woodcrest Quad, but it's gonna cost a hell of a lot more than the current Quad. And it will run Pro apps in rosetta. Doesn't make sense until ALL pro apps go UB or the Woodcrest price drops. I said it in an earlier post, I don't think you will see an "affordable" Intel Quad until Kentsfield. Better embrace Conroe or wait another 6 months.
Which will be faster??
Since the PPC is much better than any Intel processors are at much of the math that the Mac needs to do, I would think that the first generation Intel Power Macs will only really be faster doing the math routines that the Intel processors are better at. With PhotoShop not being Universal for another year, Steve will have to be very inventive or as most people would say lying to make the new appear better than the old. To date the Intel processors have proved to have lower clock speeds than the G5. Front side buss speeds are about 1/2 of the G5 front side buss speeds. It will be interesting as to how Steve will claim that the Intel Macs are faster than the G5 Macs. Maybe the single & dual 1.6 & 1.8 GHz models. But I just wonder what it will take to really be faster than the dual 2.7 GHz G5 or the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5?
Maybe theyy'll use Boot Camp to run the Intel Power Mac with Windows version of PhotoShop. Steve's a very good salesman, not a computer engineer, so anything is possible for us to see.
In a normal computer upgrade most people would be upset if the new computer was slower than the old model of computer. That would also include the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5. It will be interesting in how Steve Jobs shows this to be done, not disappointing.
I had planned to purchace the PPC replacement for the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5. AMD forced Intel to change their time table, which in turn is forcing Apple to come out with their Intel PowerMac replacement a year early. So there will probably be no PPC G5 upgrades from Apple.
generik said:Lol@longofest
Feeling a bit sore spending so much on an obsolete PC architecture?
Since the PPC is much better than any Intel processors are at much of the math that the Mac needs to do, I would think that the first generation Intel Power Macs will only really be faster doing the math routines that the Intel processors are better at. With PhotoShop not being Universal for another year, Steve will have to be very inventive or as most people would say lying to make the new appear better than the old. To date the Intel processors have proved to have lower clock speeds than the G5. Front side buss speeds are about 1/2 of the G5 front side buss speeds. It will be interesting as to how Steve will claim that the Intel Macs are faster than the G5 Macs. Maybe the single & dual 1.6 & 1.8 GHz models. But I just wonder what it will take to really be faster than the dual 2.7 GHz G5 or the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5?
Maybe theyy'll use Boot Camp to run the Intel Power Mac with Windows version of PhotoShop. Steve's a very good salesman, not a computer engineer, so anything is possible for us to see.
In a normal computer upgrade most people would be upset if the new computer was slower than the old model of computer. That would also include the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5. It will be interesting in how Steve Jobs shows this to be done, not disappointing.
I had planned to purchace the PPC replacement for the dual dual 2.5 GHz G5. AMD forced Intel to change their time table, which in turn is forcing Apple to come out with their Intel PowerMac replacement a year early. So there will probably be no PPC G5 upgrades from Apple.
kuwan said:
This is nothing new. The G5 has been 64bit since the beginning. Some software has been migrating slowly to 64bit, but others, it really doesn't make a difference. Actually, there are parts of the system that runs better or more efficently on 32bit. I mean, do you really need 64bit to run stickys? Anyway, some pro apps have migrated to 64bit or are in process. In the meantime, they run fine on 32 so I don't see the big deal unless you have a memory intensive software like Photoshop or Final Cut Pro etc..
jiggie2g said:
You do realize that you all sound like a couple of thirteen year olds arguing whether a Lamborghini is better than a Ferrari...
Just a question
Sorry if sound stupid but I'm not such a HW guy for processors but someone can explain why AMD chips and motherboards boast buses of up to 2000 MHz ( according to their ads) while Intel is still stuck at 800 or 1000? I know that nominally clocks at AMD are lower than the intel ones but the difference in the bus is huge and compensate. Why can't we have a 3.x Ghz processor dual core with 2000Mhz bus?
Sorry if sound stupid but I'm not such a HW guy for processors but someone can explain why AMD chips and motherboards boast buses of up to 2000 MHz ( according to their ads) while Intel is still stuck at 800 or 1000? I know that nominally clocks at AMD are lower than the intel ones but the difference in the bus is huge and compensate. Why can't we have a 3.x Ghz processor dual core with 2000Mhz bus?
iGary said:You do realize that you all sound like a couple of thirteen year olds arguing whether a Lamborghini is better than a Ferrari...
Actually I prefer a Porsche, and I'm Italian... only thing is Ferrari are more comfortable than Lamborghinis (unless you want to drive laid down about a foot or so from the ground...