[Moogs]

Hypothesize, analyze, discuss.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/26/intel/index.php



Seriously, would this require any significant redesign of the heat dissipation or other elements of the new Mac Pros, or could they just plop those suckers right in there?

[Jerman]

It's actually already been tested by our buds over at Anandtech:
http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

Granted that was a test chip, but sure looks good.

(Yeah, I started a thread about it here:
http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=19466 a while back, but no one cared )

[Jerman]

And btw, these things will rock! Current tests of the new chips suggest Intel needs to work on the power consumption, but they still have a bit of time to get that ironed out. I am so stoked at the thought of having 8 processors in my computer. Bad thing is all the awesome chips coming out make we want to hold off.

I need to do some more research, but I think you will even be able to plunk a Quad Core chip in the Mini, so that is what I may end up getting.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Moogs Seriously, would this require any significant redesign of the heat dissipation or other elements of the new Mac Pros, or could they just plop those suckers right in there?

Plop them right in...the cooling hardware is plenty. Still though, the power requirements for these CPUs is pretty absurd. Big rolly eyes for the home users that end up with 8-core Mac Pros for iPhoto and iMovie usage.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by Eugene Plop them right in...the cooling hardware is plenty. Still though, the power requirements for these CPUs is pretty absurd. Big rolly eyes for the home users that end up with 8-core Mac Pros for iPhoto and iMovie usage.

The Ironic part is that those 8-cores and the workstation platform are actually a liability on the consumer front. It's going to kick major booty on the high end rendering apps, but in most situations on the consumer level, a Conroe system is faster.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig The Ironic part is that those 8-cores and the workstation platform are actually a liability on the consumer front. It's going to kick major booty on the high end rendering apps, but in most situations on the consumer level, a Conroe system is faster.

Care to elaborate that assertion?

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by chucker Care to elaborate that assertion?

The Intel 5000 series server/workstation platform uses FB-DIMMs. FB-DIMMs have advantages in how much RAM can be carried and stacked, but the trade-off is high latency. When All cores are being used in a high end application, the latency is practically negated by the raw power of the four CPUs. In consumer applications the latency comes into play resulting in about a major slowdown compared to a similar (and far cheaper) conroe based system with stand DDR2 DIMMs. The 3.0ghz quad actually tested slower than the 2.67ghz C2D E6700.

[Matsu]

Are there plans for low power 4 core CPUs?

Perhaps not laptop level efficiencies, but something that would go into an iMac?

[psmith2.0]

Now, a year later, aren't we all glad Apple made this switch?

I certainly am.

I seem to remember a lot of caterwauling, handwringing and pants-wetting, here and elsewhere, over Steve's "we're switching to Intel" announcement last year (as if that ever had an effect on the OS, how it worked, how we used our Macs, what made a Mac a Mac, etc. in any way we'd truly notice as a user).

I'm happy to see that my initial [and completely uninformed, I have to admit] hunches and assessments ("this has to be a good thing...we're getting nowhere with all this G4 and G5 stuff") were on track.

It's a very exciting time to be a Mac user (I've said that for about 2-3 years now, but I really Super Extra® mean it this time).



For the first time, the hardware and performance are finally matching the OS and software in coolness and jawdropability. Very, very nice. It's great to no longer have to make apologies or excuses on the performance front.

[Matsu]

Pin compatible with a Core 2 duo... mmm... could go into an iMac... mmm... I've always had AIO misgivings, but I'm liking the iMac more and more. Might just be the high wife acceptance factor at work, but this is a crucial spec...

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig The Intel 5000 series server/workstation platform uses FB-DIMMs. FB-DIMMs have advantages in how much RAM can be carried and stacked, but the trade-off is high latency. When All cores are being used in a high end application, the latency is practically negated by the raw power of the four CPUs. In consumer applications the latency comes into play resulting in about a major slowdown compared to a similar (and far cheaper) conroe based system with stand DDR2 DIMMs. The 3.0ghz quad actually tested slower than the 2.67ghz C2D E6700.

Latency only really comes into play when you use a lot of FB-DIMMs since they are essentially daisy-chained.

The average consumer is going to see worse single-threaded performance merely because the Clovertown and Kentsfield CPUs are being introduced at lower clockspeeds than their dual-core buddies.

After-all, these really aren't a breakthrough for Intel. Technically they're double dual-core chips since the package is an MCM with two separate "Core 2" die. True quad-core desktop CPUs will probably come when Intel moves to 45nm transistors.

Originally Posted by Matsu Pin compatible with a Core 2 duo... mmm... could go into an iMac... mmm... I've always had AIO misgivings, but I'm liking the iMac more and more. Might just be the high wife acceptance factor at work, but this is a crucial spec...

Core 2 currently encompasses both Socket M, Socket T and technically Socket J as well. iMacs utilize Socket M, which won't be seeing quad-core...ever. By the time we see quad-core Merom replacement CPUs, we're looking at Socket P and 2008 or so.

[Jerman]

Didn't I hear/read that Intel will be phasing out FB-dimms shortly?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig The Intel 5000 series server/workstation platform uses FB-DIMMs. FB-DIMMs have advantages in how much RAM can be carried and stacked, but the trade-off is high latency.

Ah, but you were implying that the problem is inherent in the CPUs, not their typical chipset/RAM configuration.

[Doxxic]

Feels like I was just a little too early when I bought my shiny 1st gen Core Duo iMac...

[Jerman]

Originally Posted by Doxxic Feels like I was just a little too early when I bought my shiny 1st gen Core Duo iMac...

Heh. If you want to, you can swap out the processor with a dual core, or soon a quad core. Of course that would take some guts, sorry for the pun, to open up the iMac and swap out.

[Powerdoc]

It seems that we enter in an aera of multicore frenzy. My quad core G5 only use one or two CPU at any time.
It would be good if software took more advantage of multicore computers. Except some rare applications, software don't take advantage of more than 2 cores.

[Moogs]

Good to know Apple will have these as a legitimate option without redesign. I think you can safely tack $1500 onto the price tag of any machine that uses them, though. The Current configurations may become the best value for the money.

Agree totally about weenies who would buy this machine for anything other than professional audio, photo or video work, or 3D. Even most graphic designers wouldn't need the horsepower in most scenarios, unless they're working on gigantic images.

[Ghost2]

Originally Posted by Matsu Are there plans for low power 4 core CPUs? Perhaps not laptop level efficiencies, but something that would go into an iMac?

Actually, yes there is. According to anandtech intel will release a quad core xeon with a 50 watt power consumption in early 07. I think that intel will also come out with a desktop version of the chip. What I believe is the clover-town and 2.66ghz kentsfield use 2 conroe dies on one chip, while the lower clocked kentsfield is actually 2 merom dies which would explain the greatly reduced power consumption. Well, I'm hoping for a 4 core iMac in early 07, no matter what the odds are.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Moogs Agree totally about weenies who would buy this machine for anything other than professional audio, photo or video work, or 3D. Even most graphic designers wouldn't need the horsepower in most scenarios, unless they're working on gigantic images.

Yep. Up until about seven months ago, I was doing HEAVY (constant, rotating/cycling deadlines) four-color magazine production on a 400MHz Sawtooth G4 at work...tons of layout/typesetting, lots of Photoshop work (scanning and photography), some Illustrator, FTP'ing files everywhere, etc. The 2GHz iMac G5 I'm on now almost seems like overkill. Just cuts through all the above work like butter, and is such a joy to use every day!

As for freelance design work, all I've ever used for that has been a 400MHz iMac DV, an 800MHz iMac G4 or my current 1.25GHz PowerBook G5 (none with more than 512MB RAM).

So a duo or quad ANYTHING, to me, is going to feel like light speed! That might be why I don't have any Spec Whore tendencies...I've always had fairly modest needs, more than met by modest, mid-priced equipment.

Thank goodness I didn't decide to walk that 3D or video path...I'd be as bad as some of you.

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 my current 1.25GHz PowerBook G5 (none with more than 512MB RAM).

Do you know how long the world has waited for one of those and you keep it all to yourself? How did you get so lucky?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Ghost2 Actually, yes there is. According to anandtech intel will release a quad core xeon with a 50 watt power consumption in early 07. I think that intel will also come out with a desktop version of the chip. What I believe is the clover-town and 2.66ghz kentsfield use 2 conroe dies on one chip, while the lower clocked kentsfield is actually 2 merom dies which would explain the greatly reduced power consumption. Well, I'm hoping for a 4 core iMac in early 07, no matter what the odds are.

The point is this will be a poor choice as a CPU being used in anything other than a server blade. This Xeons will run at extremely low clockspeeds and are designed for scientific computing where discrete threads can be run without penalty.

[Partial]

the downfall of the first generation core 2 quad is that all four cores are not sharing cache and thus they are using more of the FSB to communicate. They also are going to be branded as Xeons, which will result in using the FB-dimms which I read somewhere are significantly slower for every day activity due to cas latency being higher.

the native quad core processors will be nice, though. Hopefully, they'll use DDR3 and implement a "reverse-hyperthreading" that AMD/ATI was discussing.

Ideally, they will come up with an API or something to use a core as a dedicated physics processor for games.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Matsu I've always had AIO misgivings, but I'm liking the iMac more and more. Might just be the high wife acceptance factor at work, but this is a crucial spec...

Only AIO i've ever liked was the lampshade. I'm evidently the %1 of Mac fans that think the current iMacs look terrible.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig The Ironic part is that those 8-cores and the workstation platform are actually a liability on the consumer front. It's going to kick major booty on the high end rendering apps, but in most situations on the consumer level, a Conroe system is faster.

Originally Posted by Moogs Good to know Apple will have these as a legitimate option without redesign. I think you can safely tack $1500 onto the price tag of any machine that uses them, though. The Current configurations may become the best value for the money. Agree totally about weenies who would buy this machine for anything other than professional audio, photo or video work, or 3D. Even most graphic designers wouldn't need the horsepower in most scenarios, unless they're working on gigantic images.

Let's just modify that to a cost/benefit statement. Speaking in gaming terms there is no such thing as too much power!

Only too little money.

[halo1982]

Yep, in the next year or two FB-DIMMs are going byebye.

[chucker]

That's pure speculation.