or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple finally rolls out 8-core Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple finally rolls out 8-core Mac Pro - Page 3

post #81 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's not necessarily good enough though. OS X will schedule a task for any and all processors, even if that task won't use the equivalent of 100% of a core. Rather than reassigning a task to the core it previously ran on, it will assign it to any core it likes. So the task basically takes 25% each of four cores, or 13% each of eight cores, resulting in a needless amount of cache thrashing.

Each CPU shares cache between it's cores, I was under the impression that os x actually assigns the thread to one of the 2 cores on the same cpu it was previously on. This wouldn't thrash the cache at all if this is 100% the case. As I said, under the impression... I can't back that up.

 

 

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 #82 of 165
http://www.intel.com/products/proces...chart/xeon.htm

i cannot find Xeon 3.0 Ghz Quad Core here, am i missing something here?

120W per CPU, Mc Pro one hot cake

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 #83 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

As I have mentioned a number of times on this forum, unless you have some application that will take advantage of the 8-cores or 4-cores for that matter, don't get all excited and expect a huge performance boost.

Example:

PS3 running in the Intel native mode on dual 3.0 xeon (4-cores) with 8 gigs of ram

Resize 1.3 gig image cymk image CPU usage 20%
Rotate same image 2 degrees - CPU usage 7% (took about 6 minutes)
In either case PS3 never used more than 1.8 gigs of the available ram

Unless there is going to be some huge difference between PS3 beta and the final release, I don't see any real advantage to 8-cores, least not for Photoshop. Maybe Leopard will help some.

I still maintain you are wrong. Suppose an application is only designed to handle four cores. In that case it the processor will send its instructions to those two cores. Now, while that program is executing (maybe rendering something in 3d or rendering a video file) you still have all those other cores available for instructions sent by other programs. Hence, huge performance boost for using other programs.
post #84 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

http://www.intel.com/products/proces...chart/xeon.htm

i cannot find Xeon 3.0 Ghz Quad Core here, am i missing something here?

120W per CPU, Mc Pro one hot cake

Does anyone know what size the PS is, in the mac pro?

 

 

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 #85 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post

Yep, that pretty well is the most stupid thing ever written.

Well, duh, I guess I was too subtle.

My point was that we haven't seen anything much in the ways of new design lately, except the iPhone (and the AirPort Extreme), as well as the iPod mini shrink, and the Macbook a year ago. I understad that it takes a while to perfect a design, but it's looking more and more like they can't work on things in parallel.

Here's to hoping for some interesting new designs before July!
post #86 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Does anyone know what size the PS is, in the mac pro?

Supposedly, it's 1kW. The standard model (2.66/1GB/ATI) doesn't take a quarter of that at max CPU. At max CPU, I think it draws 250W from the wall, PSU output is probably just a touch over 200W at that point. There's plenty of headroom. It's not a machine I keep under my desk during the summer, right now, it's on a high shelf. During the winter, I move it below my desk.
post #87 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Each CPU shares cache between it's cores, I was under the impression that os x actually assigns the thread to one of the 2 cores on the same cpu it was previously on. This wouldn't thrash the cache at all if this is 100% the case. As I said, under the impression... I can't back that up.

My problem is that that is not what I've seen on my quad. Sure, a dual core chip shares cache between the cores, but that's just not true for the quads.
post #88 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

You can have illustrator using 2 cores, PS using 4 cores, finder / web browser / etc using the other 2 cores. You can now multitask between applications without your computer being slowed down by the other processes.


Fortunately that is not how it works. All applications should use all cores at all times.

If an application is being a hog then it shows up in the activity window as "Nice" which really should be "Not Nice" because it indicates that the programmer decided to ignore sharing the cpu. iDVD is a perfect example of an application which hogs the CPU with a high "Nice%" yet it still cannot use any more than 40%.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #89 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

My problem is that that is not what I've seen on my quad. Sure, a dual core chip shares cache between the cores, but that's just not true for the quads.

How are you testing this?

 

 

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 #90 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Since Apple has made the choice to limit the upgradable line to the Mac Pro, and give card manufacturers no incentive to make cards for us, then it's also Apple's responsibibity to have a fairly broad line, and keep it up to date, even if it costs them money to do so.

Presumably Apple is waiting for nVidia to get their drivers sorted out before making their announcement!

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/periphera...ted-241478.php

We'll just have to wait and see what NAB brings forth!

post #91 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post

Well, duh, I guess I was too subtle.

My point was that we haven't seen anything much in the ways of new design lately, except the iPhone (and the AirPort Extreme), as well as the iPod mini shrink, and the Macbook a year ago. I understad that it takes a while to perfect a design, but it's looking more and more like they can't work on things in parallel.

Here's to hoping for some interesting new designs before July!

It's amazing how people seem to expect a new form factor every 3 to 6 months now. Apple has NEVER changed form factors at that rate, not on a singular product, which is why the other part of your post makes this a funny position for you to take.

"...we haven't seen anything much in the ways of new design lately, except..."

As soon as you say "except" the general relevance of your previous statement loses most of its import unless you prefaced the comment somehow. Every product in the Apple line up has a cycle to its development and form factor design... call them iterations.

And, tower design is always the longest of them all as there isn't a tremendous amount ot be changed when you are buidling to accomodate raw power and expandability. The current iteration of the Mac Pro tower is only a little over a year old internally and two years externally (as the case is carried over from the last G5 configuration).

The next large form factor redesign is most likely the monitor line-up, particularly when we consider the price cuts implemented today. Shortly after that, I would speculate that there will be a new design for the Video iPod, probably at or soon after the release of the iPhone. I would also expect to see redesigns of the current server line-up around the Developer's conference in June and some form of special event in the last quarter of the year for newly redesigned iMacs.

But, that's just my best guess based on all the relevant information I have at my disposal.
post #92 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdj21ya View Post

Now, while that program is executing (maybe rendering something in 3d or rendering a video file) you still have all those other cores available for instructions sent by other programs. Hence, huge performance boost for using other programs.

When I work with BIG files, be they PS or FCP, I usually want the task at hand to be completed as quickly as possible. I guess I'm not the kind of user that starts rendering a movie and then goes out surfing the web while it works in the background. That's why I have a V8 in my SUV. If I'm towing a boat, I'm not concerned with fuel economy.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #93 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

http://www.intel.com/products/proces...chart/xeon.htm

i cannot find Xeon 3.0 Ghz Quad Core here, am i missing something here?

120W per CPU, Mc Pro one hot cake

Intel hasn't announced the Xeon 3.0 Ghz Quad Core yet.
- but apparently it takes 150W

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38724

Also, it's impressive that the FSB is running at 1333MHz
- i.e. they haven't had to drop it to 1066MHz when they went Quad Core.
post #94 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

How are you testing this?

I take any program where it is known that only one thread does the heavy work. Run it on a single, dual and four core system and its CPU utilization for each will be 100%, 50% and 25%, respectively. I just read it off on the per-core readout in Activity Monitor, so it's not exact, but usually good enough to show it within 5-10%. If the OS kept tasks to a core pair, then you would probably see two cores with 50% and two at close to 0%.
post #95 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I take any program where it is known that only one thread does the heavy work. Run it on a single, dual and four core system and its CPU utilization for each will be 100%, 50% and 25%, respectively. I just read it off on the per-core readout in Activity Monitor, so it's not exact, but usually good enough to show it within 5-10%. If the OS kept tasks to a core pair, then you would probably see two cores with 50% and two at close to 0%.

And who knows how Leopard is planning to handle 8 cores.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post

Presumably Apple is waiting for nVidia to get their drivers sorted out before making their announcement!

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/periphera...ted-241478.php

We'll just have to wait and see what NAB brings forth!


Awesome news. That just about confirms Apple's intentions for NAB. I was pretty close to ordering a BOXX, or another Alenware. Thanks for sharing.
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 #96 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaidpjs@mac.com View Post

The next large form factor redesign is most likely the monitor line-up, particularly when we consider the price cuts implemented today. Shortly after that, I would speculate that there will be a new design for the Video iPod, probably at or soon after the release of the iPhone. I would also expect to see redesigns of the current server line-up around the Developer's conference in June and some form of special event in the last quarter of the year for newly redesigned iMacs.

But, that's just my best guess based on all the relevant information I have at my disposal.

3-6 months? The iPod is well over 1 1/2 year, the MacPro enclosure is almost four (though it has gone through a significant redesign inside), the Macbook Pro enclosure is more than four, with some subtle changes, the iMac is almost a year and a half, if you count the iSight revision as new and so on.

The Xserves are even older, and I don't expect any radical aestethical departure in that area.

I'm just wondering what they are doing. They seem to be hoarding new designs for post leopard computers and accessories, from what we've been hearing.

I'm not at all dissatisfied with what we have, but I believe Apple has a pretty effective design team, so I just want to know how they work.
post #97 of 165
The monitor drop is just a way to clear out inventory.

They have to have a 23" and 30" with HDMI, Component Video, iSight, Microphone, USB and Firewire in it with VESA mount support for us Apple TV guys.

Video conferencing in the living room.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #98 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Game cards don't beat pro cards in pro 3D work, just as pro cards don't beat game cards in games.

The software on the cards is different in just enough ways as to ensure that the cards do best in the markets they are sold in. You can't look at raw specs. That's never worked.

Just like your dual-superturbo Mustang GT isn't going to beat my Lamborghini Diablo on a windy road.

Ok, well I don't have one.... Yet.
post #99 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Awesome news. That just about confirms Apple's intentions for NAB. I was pretty close to ordering a BOXX, or another Alenware. Thanks for sharing.

Heh, Haven't you been close for 2 years? You do realize that your Alienware is now Dell

Why not just build your own box? Take some pride in customization. It's funner, get quality parts, cheaper, etc.

 

 

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 #100 of 165
Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

So you can have Two Dual-Core Intel Xeons, and Two Quad-Core Intel Xeons. Why the hell can't you have One Quad-Core?

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #101 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Heh, Haven't you been close for 2 years? You do realize that your Alienware is now Dell

Why not just build your own box? Take some pride in customization. It's funner, get quality parts, cheaper, etc.

No my Alienware is still pretty decent. They say you should upgrade your computer if the speed has been doubled. Do cores count as doubling speeds? I went with benchmarks, and my speed had not been doubled two years ago.
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 #102 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

So you can have Two Dual-Core Intel Xeons, and Two Quad-Core Intel Xeons. Why the hell can't you have One Quad-Core?

Sebastian

Because these are workstations for serious professionals. Apple makes a serious workstation.
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 #103 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Because these are workstations for serious professionals. Apple makes a serious workstation.

In that case a single Quad Core is more efficient then 2 Dual Cores. I gave it a few more minutes of thought and figure it's just because Apple designed it to work with 2 chips... I guess.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #104 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

So you can have Two Dual-Core Intel Xeons, and Two Quad-Core Intel Xeons. Why the hell can't you have One Quad-Core?

Sebastian

That would be an interesting experiment. I know a lot of PC motherboards will accept either Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad like the E6700. Maybe you could drop one into an iMac. That would be cool. Of course they cost around $900 so it is kind of expensive an it probably wouldn't perform well even if it worked.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #105 of 165
stop bitching about no blue ray, put in your own burner if you want. Really i dont care since i use a outside hard drive for backups and so far no games are on blue ray and i beileve that blue ray movies can not be played on computers with out a special chip. This may be wrong but still held when i last cheacked.
post #106 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

In that case a single Quad Core is more efficient then 2 Dual Cores. I gave it a few more minutes of thought and figure it's just because Apple designed it to work with 2 chips... I guess.

Sebastian

Define efficient, and for who? I think it's more efficient to be able to do more b/c I have all the apps I need running and I can use some while others are rendering in the background. More processors = get it done faster so I can more work done daily. .
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 #107 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post

Intel hasn't announced the Xeon 3.0 Ghz Quad Core yet.
- but apparently it takes 150W

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38724

Also, it's impressive that the FSB is running at 1333MHz
- i.e. they haven't had to drop it to 1066MHz when they went Quad Core.

Ummm, you do realize Intel is going to a 1600Mhz FSB later this year. Why would they lower the bus, just increase it later.
post #108 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Define efficient, and for who? I think it's more efficient to be able to do more b/c I have all the apps I need running and I can use some while others are rendering in the background. More processors = get it done faster so I can more work done daily. .

I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.

So if you had the option to just have a Quad core instead of 2 Duel Cores, you would still have as much processing power because there would still be 4 cores. As an added bonus, there would only be one chip, which makes it more energy efficient and it uses less heat then having 2 chips in the same case, powered by 2 different sockets.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #109 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

That would be an interesting experiment. I know a lot of PC motherboards will accept either Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad like the E6700. Maybe you could drop one into an iMac. That would be cool. Of course they cost around $900 so it is kind of expensive an it probably wouldn't perform well even if it worked.

Merom uses a Socket 479 whereas the Kentsfield/Conroe/Allendale uses a Land Grid Array.
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #110 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapplegenius View Post

Merom uses a Socket 479 whereas the Kentsfield/Conroe/Allendale uses a Land Grid Array.

It was a fun dream while it lasted. Thanks for the info.

m

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #111 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.

So if you had the option to just have a Quad core instead of 2 Duel Cores, you would still have as much processing power because there would still be 4 cores. As an added bonus, there would only be one chip, which makes it more energy efficient and it uses less heat then having 2 chips in the same case, powered by 2 different sockets.

Sebastian

Right now 2 dual cores are probably cheaper for APple (and you). reason being that Apple probably still has some, and #2 intel will cutting prices to move on to bigger, and better projects.
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 #112 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post

3-6 months? The iPod is well over 1 1/2 year, the MacPro enclosure is almost four (though it has gone through a significant redesign inside), the Macbook Pro enclosure is more than four, with some subtle changes, the iMac is almost a year and a half, if you count the iSight revision as new and so on.

The Xserves are even older, and I don't expect any radical aestethical departure in that area.

I'm just wondering what they are doing. They seem to be hoarding new designs for post leopard computers and accessories, from what we've been hearing.

I'm not at all dissatisfied with what we have, but I believe Apple has a pretty effective design team, so I just want to know how they work.

Hording? You aren't dissatisfied? Please, your post screams it, especially in how you present the idea. Your posts essentially read, "nothing here is impressive because they haven't changed the way the case looks!"

The overall look of the Mac Pro is NOT more than four years old. It isn't even four years old yet. And, that is only the brushed aluminum color and honeycomb looking grill aesthetic. The first tower to sport it was released in June of 2003. But, several exterior features were changed with the introduction of the MacPro in August of last year. Not to mention that, as you did acede, there have been several different modifications to the interior, not to mention a complete rewrite of its design in the MacPro.

As for the MacBook Pro, again if you limit form factor to simply color it hasn't been changed in just over 4 years as of this January, as the first PowerBook to sport the same aluminum finish was introduced in January 2003 on the first 17" model. It wasn't adopted on the full line until September of that year when there was finally a 15" Aluminum.

Mind you, since then there have been exterior port modification, the addition of the iSight, MagLock for the power cord and the transition to glossy screens.

This, of course, covers a period of time in which there was also an en masse switch to Intel chips, the redesign of the iPod Nano, the redesign of the iPod Shuffle, the introduction of a new form factor of the iMac, a slight remodel to the iMac form factor, a redesign of iBook to the MacBook, two upgrades to the OS, the introduction of the iPhone and the AppleTV.

But, yes, they're hording designs until after the release of Leopard.

(hehehehe.... at work... was trying to get the post made and missed my BAD mistake... thanks emig647)
post #113 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaidpjs@mac.com View Post

But, yes, they're hording designs until after the release of Panther.

Almost a flawless post...... leopard

 

 

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 #114 of 165
Panther was before Jaguar, which was before Tiger wasn't it? That's some ancient OS. You know what. I'll bet Vista is on par with Panther.
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 #115 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Right now 2 dual cores are probably cheaper for APple (and you). reason being that Apple probably still has some, and #2 intel will cutting prices to move on to bigger, and better projects.

That's correct, if I was a customer for the Mac Pro. The only pointed it out because it's weird to have 2 Quad Core Chips and 2 Dual Core Chips as options, even though 2 Dual Cores equals one Quad, and they have an option for 2 Quads but not 1 Quad, not even as a BTO.

You'll find out how little people care about Apple offering a cheaper price in the Graphics department of this thread. My personal opinion is that if Apple is going to stay competitive, at the very least, they can start by offering a better value in the hardware and give their customers far more choice. Hell, I was shocked when Apple decided not to choose the XTX over the XT, that's just weird.

I'm still against the Mid Tower though.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #116 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Panther was before Jaguar, which was before Tiger wasn't it? That's some ancient OS. You know what. I'll bet Vista is on par with Panther.

Vista is on par with Cheetah.

Just add Quicksilver and Growl to your applications and that makes Mac OS X only another 10 years ahead of Vista.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #117 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

Ummm, you do realize Intel is going to a 1600Mhz FSB later this year. Why would they lower the bus, just increase it later.

AFAIK all the clovertowns so far have had 1066MHz FSBs
- only the Woodcrests have had 1333MHz FSBs
post #118 of 165
Here's a strange thing - Apple has at least got round to publicising the 8-core on its UK "Hot news" pages, even though they aren't available in the UK store.
If you follow the links from the news pages, it takes you through the Mac Pro page, link at the top "Buy One" goes to the UK "Business Store" (didn't know they had one), which then leads you to the Mac Pro - you guessed it - Quad Core!

Don't know who's more messed up, Apple for being so stupid, or me for noticing!
post #119 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post

AFAIK all the clovertowns so far have had 1066MHz FSBs
- only the Woodcrests have had 1333MHz FSBs

Intel News Release, Nov. 14, 2006: Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor 5300 series. Four Intel Xeon processors are launching today at clock speeds ranging from 1.60GHz to 2.66GHz, with front side bus (FSB) speeds ranging from 1066MHz to 1333MHz.

X5355 - 2.66GHz - 1333 FSB
E5345 - 2.33GHz - 1333 FSB
E5320 - 1.86GHz - 1066 FSB
E5310 - 1.60GHz - 1066 FSB



Logically the new X5365 3.0GHz part has a 1333 FSB, like the other quad-core 53x5 Xeons.
post #120 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Panther was before Jaguar, which was before Tiger wasn't it? That's some ancient OS. You know what. I'll bet Vista is on par with Panther.

Actually...

10.2 - Jaguar
10.3 - Panther
10.4 - Tiger
10.5 - Leopard

Panther was after Jaguar, easy mistake .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple finally rolls out 8-core Mac Pro