AnandTech – September 12th, 2006:
Without a doubt Apple will release a quad-core version of the Mac Pro, either by the end of this year or early next year, but are users who buy the Mac Pro today missing out? While we’re still a couple of months away from being able to test a retail Clovertown CPU in the Mac Pro, we wanted to see if the current engineering samples of the chip would work.
We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we’re expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional.
Well, I hate to admit it, but it needs to be said. For the first time in my life I’m jealous over a Mac. There, I said it. I feel so much better now. Thanks.
[and note, that it is not Dvorak saying this. — editor]
You’ll get over it, John.
That was Steve.
I’m impressed with the horsepower, too. And after 22 years of M$oft and predecessors, I made the switch to OS X with the advent of the Mini’s. But, I don’t fiddle with video — so I don’t need that much power — yet.
I am looking forward to a Core2Duo Mini, sooner or later. And the iTV.
And btw — the OS X Beta for Skype w/video was released, today. Works fine, so far.
Clovertown is a big promise. But this is exclusive pro hardware. The memory configurations pretty much require you to fill that puppy up with 8 to 16 Gb of ram to extract every ounce of performance out of it. It’s a huge cost…
Now if you talk iMac 24″ with kensington (core2 quad)…
These are seriously spec’d out machines – what are most of us going to throw at them – Excel, and Word. Perhaps with this kind of power on tap, people will come out with some new types of apps that can take advantage of them. I can only hope
Ugh, now who’s going to shut the hell up those annoying Mac Heads yapping that their machines can outperform everyone else?
Now theyre going to say that the machine in this http://tinyurl.com/jg8o4 link can be outperformed by their Mac Pro just because it runs OSX and it has a better version of Photoshop.
Or you could buy one of these today and beat the pants off of that puny toy like computer, that wont be available for some months….
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/typhoon_b2881.html
How to go Greg — starting with a barebones price of $4300!
Yeah, sorry SN, for thinking you were JCD. Processing power isn’t everything. Power leads to fear, fear leads to anger and anger leads to the Dark Side.
#8 – but, windows is what leads to suffering…
Angel H. Wong….
Umm that computer is Q and last I checked that computer crashed in under 8 hrs of being started no matter what, and considering that its supposed to spend months on a single job I’m amazed that it is being continued.
Besides its not about the best computer it about wheather or not you can use it. Money says that 90% of the people(not studios) who buy these are going to be serious posers.
Well, I bought a Mac Pro a few weeks ago and I am ecstatic that I will likely be able to upgrade my processors to quads in the not too distant future. I probably won’t do it right away but it gives me the piece of mind knowing that this machine is upgradeable and will likely be with me for years to come.
Of course, Apple could always put out an update to prevent it from working without buying a new machine, I suppose. I just doubt that they would burn the early adopters like that.
Dual quad cores should make Parallels really fly! This thing is already blisteringly fast. I have only had the thing three weeks and it has almost caught up with the total results of my Intel P4 2.8 Ghz machine’s Seti@home results that has been running continuously for years (I give it another week to pass it).
For those of you on the fence, remember that if you have Windows XP Pro, you will be the first on the block with a eight processor PC as a bonus. That will make the ultimate multi-OS machine on the planet!
Go to an Apple Store and play around with a Mac Pro with the HUGE display….. you will never be the same.
As soon as I can afford it… It will be on my desk.
wow
I’m going to find a soloution for world hunger and peace among mankind with my 8 core Mac.
The funny part to me is that any other PC maker could have done this… if they’d differentiate their product lines between desktops (iMac, MacMini) and workstations (Mac Pro). This isn’t just technology, it’s proper marketing… and Apple is the only company that can do both well in this day and age.
People who want powerful computers already know where to find them. Companies like Boxx have systems that have 16 cores already. This comes at a price but you get what you pay for. It is my understanding that their new machines, AMD and Intel, are already compatible with quad cores and can be upgraded.
Apple is behind, very behind, for the high-end production level machine. Their choice of graphic cards for the new Mac Pro is pathetic. It is already a year or more outdated.. The fastest graphic card they offer I already had in my PC 1 /12 years ago. Sad very sad for a company that used to be know for graphics.
Don’t get me wrong I like the way The Mac Pro is designed. It is beautiful! but I need power and when we are talking power Apple is not in the running..
http://www.boxxtech.com/
How well does 8 cores scale with unoptimized code?
Years ago I was involved in multiprocessor research in grad school and at that time, with the parallel optimized code we were using, 8 was about the maximum before getting performance dropoff. 16 through 64 processors required too much interprocessor communication bandwidth without using very specialized coding. Problems like finite element analysis worked well.
Dvorak
Sounds pretty fancy, but can it make coffee?
Re: 17.
It can make tea: place a kettle on top of the metal tower and watch the water come to a boil.
I still wouldn’t throw one out of bed…
I know that this is not directly on topic, but I am wondering why anyone would buy the core duo computers when the core 2 duo’s where only a couple of months away. I accept the fact I am not up to scratch with this idea. The thing is they are already have replaced the Imac core one’s with the core 2’s. They use the laptop processors so how long till the macbook and macbook pro have the new core 2’s? Can you upgrade core to core 2’s? Not from what I have read. So if some one could clear up what reason there was to buy the original intel Mac’s and the windows based computers with the core duo’s when the core 2 duo’s where just around the corner I would appreciate it very much. I am not trying to belittle anyone who did buy these core duo based computers and I have read these are quite powerful processors in there own right it is just that news of the core 2 duo came out almost right after the news about the core duo.
thanks for any reply
John
Funny… Photoshop is always used as an example… and a version of Photoshop that runs natively on Intel-Mac is a loooong time away.
Until the software can take advantage of the hardware, the horsepower is a waste. It’s like buying a 3D graphics accelerator to run Photoshop… a complete waste.
Obviously no one read the Anandtech review that was on the link.
This is a top machine. But Apple once again fitted this with outdated graphics (at least for cutting edge, it’s supposed to be) and used a server chipset (it had to because it uses server processors) and FB memory with high latency. Just the requrements to put it ro max speed, memory wise, requires U to put 8 2Gb dimms…
This is not a CPU for everybody. Just those working on video/3D/ will take advantage of this.
As the IBM supercomputer and the Tyan based PSC links people put here…not the same thing…don’t compare Apples to Oranges.
Now that we have the processing available, when is fully integrated voice recognition gonna happen?
Regardless of what the skeptics say (who wants to talk into their computer… etc.), it is still one of the obvious killer applications out there, especially in the home. Throw in a little A.I. and it’s a no brainer,
Imagine if Microsoft’s Media Center OS had a microphone on the remote control, where you can press a “command button” and then speak something like “Record tonight’s LOST”, or “Play Let It Be”. The A.I. and speach recognition should definitely be doable in a limited domain like home entertainment.
Ah… Apple will probably do it first.
@ #21:
Well said! I’m sick of tired of ignorant people saying “ohhh.. Quadcore!!! / ZOMG 8Cores!! I want that!!!!”. They have NO idea about the technology. That type of hardware is for specialized software that will utilize it. Most typical software for the average user don’t even utilize Dualcore, so what’s the point of 8 cores???
Think your system is fast? How about an 8 core Mac Pro!
… for most people, about as fast as a single-core machine…
#25
Actually, if you read the Anandtech review, it’s the same speed as a core2 duo Extreme X6800, for general system apps.
Hi-def 1080 Blu-ray and HD-DVD players are now on the market with recorders just beginning to come on-stream. You have hi-def monitors everywhere now. Hi-def home video cameras, especially HDV – some with high-quality HDMI uncompressed capability – are also now available. Very shortly no one is going to be even remotely interested in standard definition NTSC production or in anything but real time high definition editing. But that takes a lot of horsepower.
To speak nothing of 1080P computer games.
RBG
#24 silkysaul
You will have to excuse me but I am one of those people that uses software that does take advantage of it.
Not to mention you can force W64 to load a process on a particular core therefore even if your software does not use multiple threads you can still run it at full speed on one core while you do something else on the 7 others assuming you have the memory.
#21
That’s because other than making magazines and editing professional porn, Photoshop is the other thing a Mac is useful for 😉