or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel roadmap reveals quad-core Xeon details
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel roadmap reveals quad-core Xeon details

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
Over the next several months, Intel Corp will introduce two families of quad-core Xeon processors -- one for servers and another for desktops -- with speeds that top out at 2.66GHz per core, company roadmaps have revealed.

Clovertown MP-capable quad-cores around the corner

According to documents obtained by DailyTech, the world's largest chipmaker later this year will introduce its Xeon 5000 series of DP server processors, currently code-named "Clovertown."

The quad-core and multi-processor-enabled chips will arrive in X5355, E5345, E5320 and E5310 models clocked at 2.66, 2.33, 1.86 and 1.60 GHz, according to the report. Models X5355 and E5345 will reportedly feature a 1,333 MHz front-side bus while the E5320 and E5310 will have a slightly slower 1,066 MHz front-side bus. Each of the chips will sport 8MB of L2 cache.

In lots of 1000, Clovertown processors will be priced at $1172, $851, $690 and $455 for models X5355, E5345, E5320 and E5310, respectively, DailyTech says.

Kentsfield quad-core desktop chips by Q107

According to the same report, Intel will proceed the launch of Clovertown with a Xeon 3000 line of quad-core desktop processors, code-named "Kentsfield."

The chips, which will carry processor numbers X3220 and X3210, are said to be identical to the recently named Intel Core 2 Quadro processors and share the same core.

"There will be no architectural or socket differences between desktop Core 2 Quadro and Xeon X3000 series processors, with the exception of product placement and marketing," DailyTech said. "The new Xeon X3220 and X3210 processors will arrive clocked at 2.4 and 2.13 GHz with a 1066 MHz front-side bus respectively."

Like the Clovertown family, both Kentsfield Xeon X3000 processors will feature 8MB of L2 cache. The chips are expected to fetch $851 and $690, respectively, when they make their debut around the first quarter of 2007.

In July, Intel said it was bumping the release of both Clovertown and Kentsfield to the fourth quarter of this year from their previous target date of early 2007.

It's unclear if Kentsfield's release has slipped back to "early 2007."

Update

Just to clarify: DailyTech in the cited report focuses on Intel's Xeon (server) family of chips. However, it appears chips based on the Kentsfield core will come in both a server variant and a high-end desktop variant (though they'll essentially be identical). The server model will be branded a Xeon and the desktop model a Core 2 Extreme. The aforementioned part numbers, pricing and specs are for the Xeon model.
post #2 of 88
Apple is going to have to learn how to update their product line more frequently... and Mac users are going to have to learn how to NOT complain when they buy a computer which falls from top-of-the-line within a few months.

boo hoo...

*newbie snort* "tee hee, first post, guys, first post!"

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #3 of 88
Apple's BTO strat on the Mac Pro will help bunches with these frequent processor updates. With everything being built to order when a new processor comes out it's simply another choice to pick from while spec'ing your machine.
post #4 of 88
Reguardless of when clovertown ships, I imagine we won't see it until MWSF.
post #5 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbauer

Reguardless of when clovertown ships, I imagine we won't see it until MWSF.

The Woodcrest proved that theory. I find it acceptable to buy these in jan. I'm still not 100% sold on them being in mac pros though. Will kentsfield / clovertown be the same socket as conroe / woodcrest?

Edited: Sorry I already knew the answer to that. I forgot anandtech had clovertown sample upgrades in the current mac pro. So they still should be socket 775 and socket 771 respectively.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #6 of 88
So, what is the ceiling?

- 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?

That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.

And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?
post #7 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx

So, what is the ceiling?

- 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?

That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.

And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?

Intel will max out at 4 cpus. 2 quad-cores are likely to max out the FSB 4 quad-cores are likely to be a lot worse this is where AMD will kick a lot of a**.

1066MHz are going to be a lot slower then the 1333MHz onecs
post #8 of 88
what will go into what?
post #9 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

Intel will max out at 4 cpus. 2 quad-cores are likely to max out the FSB 4 quad-cores are likely to be a lot worse this is where AMD will kick a lot of a**.

1066MHz are going to be a lot slower then the 1333MHz onecs

each die has 2 cores
HTML Code:
 ------------       ----------     -----------    -------------
| ;;;;;;;;;  |      | ;;;;;;;;; |   | ;;;;;;;;; |    | ;;;;;;;;;  |  
|  / die   /  |     | / die  /   |   | /  die  / |     |  /  die  / |
|  ;;;;;;;;  |      | ;;;;;;;;; |   |  ;;;;;;;  |     | ;;;;;;;;;  |
|  / die  /  |      | /  die  /  |   | /  die /  |     |  /  die  / |
|  ;;;;;;;;; |      |;;;;;;;;;  |   | ;;;;;;;;;|     | ;;;;;;;;;  |
      |------------------|            |------------------|
                              |            |
                              -----------
                      ram--|chip  set|----pci-e
                               -----------
                                     |
                               ----------
                         io--|chip set|-----pci-e
                              -----------
post #10 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx

So, what is the ceiling?

- 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?

That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.

And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?

If the cores double every 18 months then I would expect 32 cores mid-2011. But that assumes a lot of things, but most of the assumptions are fairly reasonable. It's quite a bit easier to stuff more transistors on a die than it is to redirect development to alternative uses of those transistors that may be more effective. The biggest potential setback is if there's a choke in fab technology. AMD's really choking on the 65nm transition and there are transitions further down the line that have hurdles that need to be overcome in order for anyone to use it.
post #11 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

Intel will max out at 4 cpus.

Maybe for the next year or so.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #12 of 88
When Intel goes to 45nm, sometime at the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2008, they will begin their move to on die memory controllers. That will make the memory bus access easier for more cores. It will also allow more cores.

These first quad core chips are like the first dual core chips Intel had. They will go to a single die for all four cores. this is the first step.
post #13 of 88
Ugh, just another hack job by Intel to say "we beat you to it!"
Two dual core processors glued together and using the same bus....
Unles you really need 8 cores in your Mac Pro, stay away!
15" MBP 2.53GHz Mid 2009, 4GB RAM, 640GB HD, sux0rz GF9400, 10.6.x...wish I had the money for a new 15" with the 1680x1050 display...sigh.
Reply
15" MBP 2.53GHz Mid 2009, 4GB RAM, 640GB HD, sux0rz GF9400, 10.6.x...wish I had the money for a new 15" with the 1680x1050 display...sigh.
Reply
post #14 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo1982

Ugh, just another hack job by Intel to say "we beat you to it!"
Two dual core processors glued together and using the same bus....
Unles you really need 8 cores in your Mac Pro, stay away!

The dire predictions of the FSB choking these processors has been shown to be false.

The thing is, if you have software to take advantage of it, you do get significant speed increases. The benchmark results shown at THG are pretty impressive, I suggest that you take a look at them than make statements like that again. Games are pretty much the only thing that doesn't benefit, but most of them don't even bother to scratch the third and fourth cores, otherwise there's a notable performance increase in everything else.
post #15 of 88
So when can I get a 4 core iMac? Is there a roadmap for lower power 4 core chips?
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #16 of 88
as of now Core 2 Duo (mobile) version not going 4 core ... so we might see delay in 4 cores in iMac

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #17 of 88
Is it my imagination or does Intel come up with new/faster processors every few months? It seems every other week, I read something about new chips from Intel that can be used in Macs. I hate to say it but it looks like Apple should have jumped to Intel years ago.

The move to Intel was another bold move by Steve... I hope Gil Amelio is taking notes. THIS is how it’s done.
post #18 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo1982

Ugh, just another hack job by Intel to say "we beat you to it!"
Two dual core processors glued together and using the same bus....
Unles you really need 8 cores in your Mac Pro, stay away!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

The dire predictions of the FSB choking these processors has been shown to be false...The thing is, if you have software to take advantage of it, you do get significant speed increases. The benchmark results shown at THG are pretty impressive, I suggest that you take a look at them than make statements like that again. Games are pretty much the only thing that doesn't benefit, but most of them don't even bother to scratch the third and fourth cores, otherwise there's a notable performance increase in everything else.

I think it's a bit of both. Intel has gone a little too hard in trying to beat AMD, it's like beating the f*k out of a pinata, where you're kind of drunk and just bashing away hardcore until there's just like a little string of paper left and you're still bashing it, and all the kids by this stage are crying with the overperformance of violence.

There are various stages of using more than one core, from multitasking, to dualcore-aware software, to rare software that picks up on 4 to 8 cores.

IIRC Unreal Tournament 2007 should be at least dualcore-aware.

It's a bit of Intel pushing real hard and software developers catching up. A Quad MacPro is mighty fine in and of itself. I would say the bottleneck is efficient coding, say for a single render or encode task, to make the most of 4 cores.
post #19 of 88
"Keep in mind that these are not official requirements [for UT2007] from Epic, nor final. What we know is that the game will take advantage of technologies such as dual core processors, AGEIA compatible Physics chips and Shader Model 3.0."

http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=32574
post #20 of 88
I'll be interested to see the Mac's progression once Adobe announces CS3 Universal in Q2 2007 about the same time a New Mac Pro with these upgrades chips start to ship. How exciting!!! Faster Mac's and Universal CS at the same time!
post #21 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx

So, what is the ceiling?

- 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?

That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.

And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?


I dont think Intel will do more than 4 cores until they release the CSI versions, which is an interconnect very much like Hypertransport that AMD uses, and the G5 used. Should also be 45nm and an integrated memory controller. Supposed to be out mid to late 2008.
post #22 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

Intel will max out at 4 cpus. 2 quad-cores are likely to max out the FSB 4 quad-cores are likely to be a lot worse this is where AMD will kick a lot of a**.

1066MHz are going to be a lot slower then the 1333MHz onecs

How is this going to affect me if I say use a quad core or dual quad-core system in a renderfarm environment? That was rhetorical, the answer is it wouldn't. When comparing multicore systems the FSB does come into play when you have applications that are likely to be memory bound or latency bound. If I was running an enterprise database I'd be looking at the Opteron's a bit harder or I'd look at Tulsa with it's huge L3 cache. However FSB saturation really only comes into play for some truly high end servers so I doubt the FSB will be a real limiting factor for a workstation.

I know I'd be happy to see what an 8-core Mac Pro could do for encoding video.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 88
They are adding cores to chipsets faster than blades to razors.
post #24 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison

How is this going to affect me if I say use a quad core or dual quad-core system in a renderfarm environment? That was rhetorical, the answer is it wouldn't. When comparing multicore systems the FSB does come into play when you have applications that are likely to be memory bound or latency bound. If I was running an enterprise database I'd be looking at the Opteron's a bit harder or I'd look at Tulsa with it's huge L3 cache. However FSB saturation really only comes into play for some truly high end servers so I doubt the FSB will be a real limiting factor for a workstation.

I know I'd be happy to see what an 8-core Mac Pro could do for encoding video.

FSB saturation is more likey when each die needs to use the fsb to talk to each core as well as useing the same bus to get to ram the big l2 helps but when amd comes with it's true quad-cores with l3 cache intel may be back where they where with the duel cores.

also in 4 cpu systems haveing 8 cores on one fsb is going to be a big choke point at least they should put the other 8 on there own bus and then still they may choke even more at the chip set to ram link.
post #25 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

also in 4 cpu systems haveing 8 cores on one fsb is going to be a big choke point at least they should put the other 8 on there own bus and then still they may choke even more at the chip set to ram link.

I do not believe that you know what you are talking about. It looks like you are assuming the old paradigms are being carried forward. They aren't. Heck, I'll just say you are simply wrong here in relation to the upcoming four core processors.

Like Woodcrest and the 5000 chipsets, each Clovertown chip package has its own bus to the chipset. The workstations are dual FSB. Also, the four-socket system based on the Tigerton chip (four socket version of Clovetown/Kentsfield) will have one FSB per CPU package, meaning it is a quad FSB, so the servers can run sixteen CPU cores without being choked by FSB contention because the FSB bandwidth is so high.
post #26 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo1982

Ugh, just another hack job by Intel to say "we beat you to it!"
Two dual core processors glued together and using the same bus....
Unles you really need 8 cores in your Mac Pro, stay away!


Not really. If you do a lot of video and editing, these processors are for you. I saw some specs on a pair of these dual quads a few months back, and it was impressive. There was like 40% to 70% performance gains in encoding across the board, and photoshop had similar results. After effects was another application tested, and there is definitely significant performance gains in applications that are developed to take advantage of multiprocessor environments.
These is not a useless update. Just fitting two dual core woodcrests on a single chip the same size as woodcrest is amazing.
I think Apple will quietly do a PowerMac silent update (just change the options page when they are available, and not make a big fuss about it) once they are available. They fit right in the same socket as the woodcrest.
Hopefully they will update the graphics card options at the same time.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #27 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancm2000

They are adding cores to chipsets faster than blades to razors.

Next thing we know, the Xeons in our Mac Pros will emit cooling, smoothing gel!
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #28 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison

I know I'd be happy to see what an 8-core Mac Pro could do for encoding video.



Exactly!

Also, according to Anandtech, the existing Mac Pro will accept Clovertown, so you all that have one will be able to DIY prior to MWSF.

H.264 (AKA AVC) HD takes a LONG time, but I don't know if applications like MPEG Streamclip, Episode (AKA Compression Master), or FCP will take advantage of the additional cores without upgraded SW?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #29 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu

So when can I get a 4 core iMac? Is there a roadmap for lower power 4 core chips?

We might see this when Intel goes 45nm, in a year and 3 months, or a bit later. That's when they will begin to move to the power saving on die memory controller as well.
post #30 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by baygbm

Is it my imagination or does Intel come up with new/faster processors every few months? It seems every other week, I read something about new chips from Intel that can be used in Macs. I hate to say it but it looks like Apple should have jumped to Intel years ago.

The move to Intel was another bold move by Steve... I hope Gil Amelio is taking notes. THIS is how it’s done.

Steve had no choice. When Amelio was there, the prediction was that the PowerPC would knock Intel off the shelf. There was no reason to switch then. x86 was being slammed.
post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

Intel will max out at 4 cpus. 2 quad-cores are likely to max out the FSB 4 quad-cores are likely to be a lot worse this is where AMD will kick a lot of a**.

1066MHz are going to be a lot slower then the 1333MHz onecs

The top chips will still use 1333.
post #32 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

I think it's a bit of both. Intel has gone a little too hard in trying to beat AMD, it's like beating the f*k out of a pinata, where you're kind of drunk and just bashing away hardcore until there's just like a little string of paper left and you're still bashing it, and all the kids by this stage are crying with the overperformance of violence.

There are various stages of using more than one core, from multitasking, to dualcore-aware software, to rare software that picks up on 4 to 8 cores.

IIRC Unreal Tournament 2007 should be at least dualcore-aware.

It's a bit of Intel pushing real hard and software developers catching up. A Quad MacPro is mighty fine in and of itself. I would say the bottleneck is efficient coding, say for a single render or encode task, to make the most of 4 cores.

Now that Intel is ahead, they want to be seen as staying ahead.
post #33 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

If the cores double every 18 months then I would expect 32 cores mid-2011. But that assumes a lot of things, but most of the assumptions are fairly reasonable. It's quite a bit easier to stuff more transistors on a die than it is to redirect development to alternative uses of those transistors that may be more effective. The biggest potential setback is if there's a choke in fab technology. AMD's really choking on the 65nm transition and there are transitions further down the line that have hurdles that need to be overcome in order for anyone to use it.


Did you see Intel's discussion today of an 80-core chip by around 2010? There is more than just this going on in the industry, and probably even just at Intel. This is going to force a change in how software is written for these things, and the kinds of things we expect to use them for. Get out of the current paradigm, and get ready for the new one.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #34 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer

Did you see Intel's discussion today of an 80-core chip by around 2010?

It looks like those 80 cores weren't general purpose CPU cores though but rather simplified cores designed for floating point performance. Assuming it's functional, you can get a bunch of those chips in a refrigerator-sized computer and it might challenge Blue Gene.
post #35 of 88
That wafer was specialized cores. But then so is the Cell. So?
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer

That wafer was specialized cores. But then so is the Cell. So?

My prediction was based on general purpose cores, which is a lot tougher to do than specialized cores. Specialized cores can be made very small, very high performance, but at the expense of functionality. That's all I'm saying with respect to your original response to me.
post #37 of 88
Regardless, we have been inching into a paradigm shift because of cpus with multiple cores. The goddess has many arms.
post #38 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sybaritic

Regardless, we have been inching into a paradigm shift because of cpus with multiple cores. The goddess has many arms.

Yes, she does. But how many can she use at once?
post #39 of 88
Ok..someone please clarify-
will the games industry (PC, not console) make much more use of a Quad Core chip than a dual core anytime within the next 3 years ?
OSX > Windows. Fact || Leopard > Vista. Fact || Apple > Microsoft. Fact
The single best piece of audio you shall ever hear http://media.putfile.com/Metal-Gear-Solid-2-Main-Theme
Reply
OSX > Windows. Fact || Leopard > Vista. Fact || Apple > Microsoft. Fact
The single best piece of audio you shall ever hear http://media.putfile.com/Metal-Gear-Solid-2-Main-Theme
Reply
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD

Ok..someone please clarify-
will the games industry (PC, not console) make much more use of a Quad Core chip than a dual core anytime within the next 3 years ?

See link below. It's coming.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/...spx?i=2841&p=2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel roadmap reveals quad-core Xeon details