AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pros
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pros - Page 9

post #321 of 399
12/10/07 at 8:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

That's incredible. Intel must be sandbagging on the Penryn. ... Shouldn't we really be at 4 gig by now anyhow? The design of the cpu is much better and the process is much smaller and efficient...

...so how come speed grades which are essentially the same as the last generation?


The high rate demo was no doubt a hand-picked chip, and it hasn't been running all that long. At 45nm and below issues of longevity are going to become serious, and running at high power/heat levels will impact chip lifetime in a major way. I expect that Intel is getting some small yield of chips that run crazy fast, and they are probably sandbagging a bit because they want to maximize their yields (and thus profits). That will leave them in a position 6-12 months from now to ramp the clock rates, as long as they are confident that their next generation processors won't force them to drop back down again.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #322 of 399
12/10/07 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

That's incredible. Intel must be sandbagging on the Penryn. ... Shouldn't we really be at 4 gig by now anyhow? The design of the cpu is much better and the process is much smaller and efficient...

...so how come speed grades which are essentially the same as the last generation?


The high rate demo was no doubt a hand-picked chip, and it hasn't been running all that long. At 45nm and below issues of longevity are going to become serious, and running at high power/heat levels will impact chip lifetime in a major way. I expect that Intel is getting some small yield of chips that run crazy fast, and they are probably sandbagging a bit because they want to maximize their yields (and thus profits). That will leave them in a position 6-12 months from now to ramp the clock rates, as long as they are confident that their next generation processors won't force them to drop back down again. Doing this lets them introduce "Super ultra extreme extreme" versions at stupidly high prices (and margins).



Woops, sorry about the double post -- don't even know how it happened.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #323 of 399
12/12/07 at 8:49am
Quote:
The high rate demo was no doubt a hand-picked chip, and it hasn't been running all that long. At 45nm and below issues of longevity are going to become serious, and running at high power/heat levels will impact chip lifetime in a major way. I expect that Intel is getting some small yield of chips that run crazy fast, and they are probably sandbagging a bit because they want to maximize their yields (and thus profits). That will leave them in a position 6-12 months from now to ramp the clock rates, as long as they are confident that their next generation processors won't force them to drop back down again. Doing this lets them introduce "Super ultra extreme extreme" versions at stupidly high prices (and margins).

Hmm. Well, AMD are in no position to push them. The race to 1 gig days are over for AMD at the moment? Also, there is RND to claw back. But...I can't see Intel getting to 3.4-4.0 gig on Penryn when Nehalem is imminent? Why not just push those speeds when Nehalem launches.

I suppose if Nehalem is launching late 2008...then there's room for a Penryn bump to 3.4/3.6/3.8 half term 2008.

Nehalem sounds like the more exciting chip because of the memory controller stuff.

I'll leave it to the sage-like Programmer to speculate on what kind of performance improvements we'll get over Penryn. But for the most part, Penryn, outside of SS4 instructions is a mere improvement over the current stuff. Cooler, I suppose.

I'm not sure if I can wait. If Apple are going all Octo for the Penryn bump and you can get a 9900 card from Nv. What's Nehalem going to offer worth waiting a year for?

I hear rumours of an 8 core version of Nehalem? Which means a dual octo? 16 core render beast? Will we REALLY see that inside 2008?

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #324 of 399
12/12/07 at 8:49am
Quote:
Woops, sorry about the double post -- don't even know how it happened.

Seeing as it is your 1st time, we'll let you off...

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #325 of 399
12/12/07 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I hear rumours of an 8 core version of Nehalem? Which means a dual octo? 16 core render beast? Will we REALLY see that inside 2008?

Lemon Bon Bon.

8-cores CPUs will be for MP servers at launch.
While some cpus are expected late 2008 (bloomfield/gainestown),
other are expected mid 2009 (Havendale/Lynnfield and Auburndale/Clarksfield)
or late 2009 (8-cores Beckton).
Expect up to 64 cores (up to 128 threads) servers in 2010 (XServe "Ultra").



For the Mac Pro, it will certainly use dual quad-core Gainestowns (16 threads) with DDR3 RAM and QPI interface to the IOH.



For the mobile/hybrids: high-end quad Clarksfield (45/55W) or low-end dual-core+gpu core Auburndale (35/45W), with integrated memory controller, DDR3 RAM, PCIe Gen2 and DMI interface to the PCH (Platform controller hub, with USB, SATA, Enet, Wifi, etc.).

While those TDP seem higher than currents and penryn ones, remember than there will be no more north bridge chip (almost included in the cpu).

Reply
Reply
post #326 of 399
12/12/07 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

But...I can't see Intel getting to 3.4-4.0 gig on Penryn when Nehalem is imminent? Why not just push those speeds when Nehalem launches.

Its going to purely be a function of how well they are yielding because, as you point out, it doesn't look like it'll be driven by competition from AMD. The mid-3 GHz range seems achievable though.

Quote:
Nehalem sounds like the more exciting chip because of the memory controller stuff.

The fact that its a whole new microarchitecture is the exciting part. Everybody has been clamoring for on-chip memory controllers for ages, but really I'm not sure how big a win it is in terms of performance in desktop systems. It should be a significant cost and TDP win since there are fewer parts, and it should reduce the amount of L2 cache they are obliged to include... but in terms of real-world performance due to the on-die memory controller alone, I don't think it'll live up to the hype around the issue. The new chip interconnect will be a nice addition at the MacPro level -- finally a competitor to HyperTransport... but again, on most software is it going to be a big win? The return of HyperThreading is also interesting for software that needs lots of threads, but really... with 4+ cores already are most users going to see a difference? Perhaps as software evolves over the next few years, but on the day these things ship I doubt it.

The GPU core tightly coupled to the CPU may be the most interesting technology. Intel has come a long way with their integrated GPUs, and I would guess that this thing is the next generation after the current X3100 and it will benefit from high speed interconnects with the CPU and the CPU's on-chip memory controller. There is no doubt that all the high-end GPU fans will slag this mercilessly just like they do the X3100 and its predecessors... but the fact remains that for the iMac and MacBook this will be a big step up. Possibly a very big step up.

Quote:
What's Nehalem going to offer worth waiting a year for?

Yeah, that's my point. With Penyrn the transition to 45nm is a win, along with various architectural refinements... Nehalem is going to bring a bunch of new forward-looking stuff, but its not clear how big an improvement will be delivered on day 1.


Addendum: I just came across an Intel page discussing Nehalem, and the stuff it talks about is mostly of interest to Intel and PC makers. It is aimed at created a chip family that scales from the low end to the high end, from the low-power to the high-power. There is no discussion of specific performance enhancements or new technologies that should make a buyer wait for it. Laptops and AIO machines will benefit the most, it looks like.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #327 of 399
12/13/07 at 8:11am
2009 and only one x16 2.0 slot + up 8 x1 slots and no link for a nvidia chip set in the desktop cpu. I hope you can use 4 of them in a x4 slot. Also no video ram only link?

ATI is working on board video with it's OWN RAM in a upcomeing chip set.

By then we may have amd cpu with built video + a cross fire link to a video card.

As well as nvidia chipsets with build in video + a sli link to a video card.
Reply
Reply
post #328 of 399
12/13/07 at 8:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

2009 and only one x16 2.0 slot + up 8 x1 slots and no link for a nvidia chip set in the desktop cpu. I hope you can use 4 of them in a x4 slot. Also no video ram only link?

ATI is working on board video with it's OWN RAM in a upcomeing chip set.

By then we may have amd cpu with built video + a cross fire link to a video card.

As well as nvidia chipsets with build in video + a sli link to a video card.

Why? Do you use SLI? Even now, I get the feeling that SLI is one of those flagship things that not many people really use. I know you like to harp on lanes, but on every practical calculation, it's really hard to use up the PCIe bandwidth that's in the Mac Pro. Even the "x16" video cards barely use half of that, the benefit of more than x8 is very marginal.
Reply
Reply
post #329 of 399
12/14/07 at 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

2009 and only one x16 2.0 slot + up 8 x1 slots and no link for a nvidia chip set in the desktop cpu. I hope you can use 4 of them in a x4 slot. Also no video ram only link?

ATI is working on board video with it's OWN RAM in a upcomeing chip set.

By then we may have amd cpu with built video + a cross fire link to a video card.

As well as nvidia chipsets with build in video + a sli link to a video card.


Are you only looking at the bottom image in mjteix's message? That's the low end CPU and chipset. No need for dedicate memory, multiple x16 lanes, etc. And don't get all fired up over dedicated video memory, it has its disadvantages. A unified memory model is more flexible and avoids some of the bottlenecks around moving data to/from VRAM.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #330 of 399
12/15/07 at 4:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Why? Do you use SLI? Even now, I get the feeling that SLI is one of those flagship things that not many people really use. I know you like to harp on lanes, but on every practical calculation, it's really hard to use up the PCIe bandwidth that's in the Mac Pro. Even the "x16" video cards barely use half of that, the benefit of more than x8 is very marginal.

A lot of people use SLI, Although you obviously can't under the Mac OS due to the lack of a driver for it, but you will definitely need a X16 lane with any New Nvidia Card from the 8600 series and up, or a Quadro, any X2 Card (Especially a Quadro) GeForce 7950 GX2 (is a prime example), And there will be manufacturers that will be making GX2 cards for the 8800 series also. The 8800 Ultra will easily out power an 8X lane. Actually that's what you should be asking. What will out power an 8X PCI-E Lane? Answer: Many cards.
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 #331 of 399
12/15/07 at 4:41am
And for those who do like to game NVidia just broke new ground, and in turn puts Apple two generations behind in graphics capabilities.

Using three GPU's the 3-way NVIDIA SLI takes extreme gaming to a whole new level.
Friday, 14 December 2007

Extreme gaming just got a whole lot better. NVIDIA has released and extended its SLI technology, which enables the use of multiple graphics processing units (GPUs) on a single computer, allowing up to three GeForce graphics cards to be used in a single machine.

Now the graphics-intensive titles, such as Call of Duty 4, Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and Unreal Tournament 3, can be played at the highest resolution possible, with all the graphics settings cranked to the max, and antialiasing applied for the first time. Also, for the serious user in production, the rendering speed generated out of the use of the SLI is nothing less than brilliant.

NVIDIA’s new 3-way SLI delivers up to a 2.8x performance increase over a single GPU system, giving high-end gamers 60 frames per second at resolutions as high as 2560x1600 and with 8x antialiasing. 3-way SLI technology means there'll be no more dialing back the image quality settings on the newest PC games. For example, gamers with 3-way SLI can play 'Call of Duty 4' at high resolutions such as 1920x1200 with all the advanced DirectX 10 effects such as motion blur, ambient occlusion, and soft shadows turned on. Its the full experience that the producers and the artists wanted the game players to see.

The heart of a 3-way SLI system is an NVIDIA nForce® 680 SLI MCP motherboard and three GeForce 8800 GTX or GeForce 8800 Ultra graphics cards. With 3-way SLI, gamers can harness the power of 384 stream processors, a 110+ gigatexel per second texture fill rate, and over two gigabytes of graphics memory for no-compromise gaming performance.

3-way SLI gives gamers the flexibility to scale their graphics processing power with one, two, or three GeForce GPUs, depending on their desired price and system configuration. 3-way SLI systems are available from leading gaming PC system builders and the components needed to build your own 3-way SLI system are available from leading retailers.

--------------------

And for the production Artist it looks like real time shader, texture, bump mapping, and light, rendering on the fly of a 11 million polly model is getting closer at hand.
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 #332 of 399
12/15/07 at 4:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

A lot of people use SLI, Although you obviously can't under the Mac OS due to the lack of a driver for it, but you can definitely saturate a X16 lane with any New Nvidia Card from the 8600 series and up, or a Quadro, any X2 Card (Especially a Quadro) GeForce 7950 GX2 (is a prime example), And there will be manufacturers that will be making GX2 cards for the 8800 series also. The 8800 Ultra will easily out power an 8X lane. Actually that's what you should be asking. What will out power an 8X PCI-E Lane? Answer: Many cards.

Then please give me some actual numbers. How many people use SLI? I've yet to meet anyone that does. Show me the tests that show the speed difference between an x8 and x16 slot in that card that suggests that it can saturate it at x16. The only tests I've seen show a low single digit percent difference.
Reply
Reply
post #333 of 399
12/15/07 at 5:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Then please give me some actual numbers. How many people use SLI? I've yet to meet anyone that does. Show me the tests that show the speed difference between an x8 and x16 slot in that card that suggests that it can saturate it at x16. The only tests I've seen show a low single digit percent difference.

Probably because Mac users don't have it.

And go find them yourself if your that curious. What are your fingers painted on?
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 #334 of 399
12/15/07 at 5:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Probably because Mac users don't have it.

My "circle" isn't made up of just Mac users. I don't know that many Mac users either, except on the Internet. I don't know any other Mac Pro users. That's not the problem.

Quote:
And go find them yourself if your that curious. What are your fingers painted on?

All I'm asking is that you back up your claim. A claim is pretty worthless if it can't be backed up when requested.

As it is, based on Steam numbers, only 9% of the users have an 8800 of any kind:

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

It's the most popular model, but as a whole, not a majority as the Internet Bullhorn suggests. A surprising number of users are using very old systems. SLI isn't even covered in the survey, that's the closest I can find.
Reply
Reply
post #335 of 399
12/15/07 at 5:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

No. You make a claim, you back it up.

I have. Try using the search. n00b!
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 #336 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

I have. Try using the search. n00b!

Who are you, tekstud? Saying "It's out there" is not backing it up. You made the claim, the onus is on you to back it up by specifically pointing to the evidence when asked. A claim is worthless if you try to make other people prove your claim for you. Short of that, it's just a religious chant on your part.
Reply
Reply
post #337 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Who are you, tekstud? Saying "It's out there" is not backing it up. You made the claim, the onus is on you to back it up by specifically pointing to the evidence when asked. A claim is worthless if you try to make other people prove your claim for you.

I've done the research in here before, You should know you need to use search before asking any question, and I don't need to do it again. But I know the benefits lie mainly in the memory. It's not that a 16X lane can be fully saturated, but it's that a 8X can be lightly bottled, and that was a while ago with last generation cards, But, if one were to be using something along the lines of a QuadroFX 5600 you would obviously see more degradation, and I would imagine that any X2 Nvidia card would do the same; such as a Quadro FX 4500X2
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 #338 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:16am
http://www.diy-street.com/forum/show...2&postcount=28

This one shows that x2 on a 7800 is 80% the speed of an x16 on the same card. x8 is 94% the speed of x16 on the same card. I really doubt that an 8800 can show that x8 would make the card half as fast as it would be on x16. I'm not even sure any similar tests with the 8800 exist. If it's out there, it's cluttered in the noise.
Reply
Reply
post #339 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

http://www.diy-street.com/forum/show...2&postcount=28

This one shows that x2 on a 7800 is 80% the speed of an x16 on the same card. x8 is 94% the speed of x16 on the same card. I really doubt that an 8800 can show that x8 would make the card half as fast as it would be on x16.

That I never said, so I don't know why your claiming that.
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 #340 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:21am
Also your X2 is an X2 lane, not a Dual GPU on one card like the X2 I am talking about. Just to clarify.
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 #341 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

That I never said, so I don't know why your claiming that.

If a card can truly saturate an x16, it would be severely throttled at x8. A 7800 *might* be called as saturating an x2 lane system. I doubt that an 8600 or 8800 can consume four times that data rate. Maybe the information is out there, but frankly, it's caught in the noise.
Reply
Reply
post #342 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

If a card can truly saturate an x16, it would be severely throttled at x8. A 7800 *might* be called as saturating an x2 lane system. I doubt that an 8600 or 8800 can consume four times that data rate.

Again. Were did I ever say that a 16X lane could be fully saturated? WTF?
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 #343 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Also your X2 is an X2 lane, not a Dual GPU on one card like the X2 I am talking about. Just to clarify.

X2 and x2 mean different things. The caps do mean very specific things, and I do understand that.
Reply
Reply
post #344 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Again. Were did I ever say that a 16X lane could be fully saturated? WTF?

"but you can definitely saturate a X16 lane with any New Nvidia Card from the 8600 series and up, "

fully saturate was redundant on my part.
Reply
Reply
post #345 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

"but you can definitely saturate a X16 lane with any New Nvidia Card from the 8600 series and up, "

A misuse of the terminology, (I just wrote the wrong speed down I meant 8x isn't enough) and I have since restated my meaning at least once.
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 #346 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:42am
It's getting harder to find reliable SLI lane tests on the internet, and this poster actually cleared up a lot for me as to why I can not find anything that looks reliable anymore.

Quote:
I think thats mistaken. Since there are 32x boards out... plus when you factor in all the lanes for the other onboard devices that use the PCI-e bus... you would still be over 20 lanes with a single 16x and 4 slot on the mainboard...

Read the PCIe spec. You are confusing slot lenght (1x, 2x, 4x, 16x) with the total available lanes which is not surprising since most review sites do it too. While 8X lenght slots are valid you will not see them used on any consumer MB's.

While how the lanes are distributed amoung the slots varies some from maker to maker a typical triple spaced, dual 16X slot PCIe MB will have a 1X and a 2X slot in between the 16X slots. In single card config the lanes will be distributed as 16 to PCIe1 which is normally the slot closest to the CPU, no lanes to the 1X (in other words disabled), 2 lanes to the 2X slot and 2 lanes to PCIe4 which is the 2nd 16X slot.

When configured for SLI or CF that same MD will have 8 lanes going to each 16X PCIe slot (PCIe1 and PCIe4), 1 lane to the 1X slot, 2 lanes to the 2X slot
and 1 lane unused.

There are of course other configurations of slot sizes used with different distributions of the available lanes to them but the above is fairly common.

Viper

I think you can see how much confusion could potentially be made from that.
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 #347 of 399
12/15/07 at 6:52am
x4 and up raid cards are also becomeing a big things as well.

and boards with on board pci-x slots use x4 lanes for the pci-e to pci-x chip.
Reply
Reply
post #348 of 399
12/15/07 at 9:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

x4 and up raid cards are also becomeing a big things as well.

and boards with on board pci-x slots use x4 lanes for the pci-e to pci-x chip.

PC's never stopped having PCI-X when PCI-E came out. Just Mac's.
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 #349 of 399
12/15/07 at 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

And for those who do like to game NVidia just broke new ground, and in turn puts Apple two generations behind in graphics capabilities.

Using three GPU's the 3-way NVIDIA SLI takes extreme gaming to a whole new level.
Friday, 14 December 2007

Extreme gaming just got a whole lot better. NVIDIA has released and extended its SLI technology, which enables the use of multiple graphics processing units (GPUs) on a single computer, allowing up to three GeForce graphics cards to be used in a single machine.

Now the graphics-intensive titles, such as Call of Duty 4, Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and Unreal Tournament 3, can be played at the highest resolution possible, with all the graphics settings cranked to the max, and antialiasing applied for the first time. Also, for the serious user in production, the rendering speed generated out of the use of the SLI is nothing less than brilliant.

NVIDIAs new 3-way SLI delivers up to a 2.8x performance increase over a single GPU system, giving high-end gamers 60 frames per second at resolutions as high as 2560x1600 and with 8x antialiasing. 3-way SLI technology means there'll be no more dialing back the image quality settings on the newest PC games. For example, gamers with 3-way SLI can play 'Call of Duty 4' at high resolutions such as 1920x1200 with all the advanced DirectX 10 effects such as motion blur, ambient occlusion, and soft shadows turned on. Its the full experience that the producers and the artists wanted the game players to see.

The heart of a 3-way SLI system is an NVIDIA nForce® 680 SLI MCP motherboard and three GeForce 8800 GTX or GeForce 8800 Ultra graphics cards. With 3-way SLI, gamers can harness the power of 384 stream processors, a 110+ gigatexel per second texture fill rate, and over two gigabytes of graphics memory for no-compromise gaming performance.

3-way SLI gives gamers the flexibility to scale their graphics processing power with one, two, or three GeForce GPUs, depending on their desired price and system configuration. 3-way SLI systems are available from leading gaming PC system builders and the components needed to build your own 3-way SLI system are available from leading retailers.

--------------------

And for the production Artist it looks like real time shader, texture, bump mapping, and light, rendering on the fly of a 11 million polly model is getting closer at hand.

Minimum Power Supply is 1100W. Somehow I'd imagine the design of the motherboard needing 3 full PCIe x16 slots makes this not materially possible, even if the drivers were available.
Reply
Reply
post #350 of 399
12/16/07 at 12:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleCore View Post

I am beginning to think new Mac Pros will be announced after Macworld, but sooner than NAB or WWDC. I assume they will be in new enclosures at that time.

Steve will probably spend half of the keynote on Leopard (how many they've sold, update today, etc.), new Mac stores, revenue, another look at iLife, iTunes with a new update. Then if they introduce some new product, a consumer/prosumer device, that will eat up the rest of the time. Then a close with an up and coming musician. Unfortunately, we won't be seeing new Pro macs at MacWorld.

I think you are mistaken. Expect the 8-core Mac Pro to have a staring role in the January 15th SteveNote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

If you're saying apple is going to wait until NAB or "photo shows" I highly disagree. The next event after MWSF is usually in March or April. Apple can't go that long without releasing. Apple has updated these machines on normal days in the passed, but I don't see any reason for apple to release these machines between now and MWSF... and I can't imagine they go much passed MWSF.

I will be in shock if it's not January 15.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

After macworld would be insanity... The mac pro specs haven't been touched since August 2006... Why wouldn't they announce it at MacWorld if it's ready? It's free Press.

Zactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Don't gotta apologize. It's all speculation. Apple could announce any day, any time they want. They have done it many many times in the past.

You're right, it is insanity they have gone this long. I personally don't get it. They HAVE the cpus. What else is there to wait for? Graphics cards? Motherboards? If dell has the motherboards I'm sure apple does too. All I can think of is graphics.

They had to wait for the Intel Penryn Developer Kit which was only released week before last so they could tweak Leopard for Penryn efficiency adding all the new multimedia hooks to 10.5.2 so the system software is in tune with the new Penryn, Stoakley-Seaburg hardware. They also had to wait for the supply of 3.2 GHz Harpertown Quad Core Penryns - the last to be delivered in significant quantity - to ramp up. I don't see any reason to think this next gen 2008 Mac Pro is anything but on time as soon as it could have possibly been delivered. And I also don't see how it's not going to be one of the centerpieces of Steves's message January 15th. I.E. All the pieces to the new Mac Pro will be in place by January 15, 2008. There's absolutely no reason to think it's going to be later than that.

Oct 3.2GHz 08 MP, 32GB, 512SSD, 15TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5, 64 ATT iPad 4, 64 Touch3G, 16 Nano6G

Reply

Oct 3.2GHz 08 MP, 32GB, 512SSD, 15TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5, 64 ATT iPad 4, 64 Touch3G, 16 Nano6G

Reply
post #351 of 399
12/17/07 at 7:34am
Quote:
Its going to purely be a function of how well they are yielding because, as you point out, it doesn't look like it'll be driven by competition from AMD. The mid-3 GHz range seems achievable though.

*Nods.

Quote:
Nehalem sounds like the more exciting chip because of the memory controller stuff.

Well, there's been hype about this in AMD chips for years...

The fact that its a whole new microarchitecture is the exciting part. Everybody has been clamoring for on-chip memory controllers for ages, but really I'm not sure how big a win it is in terms of performance in desktop systems. It should be a significant cost and TDP win since there are fewer parts, and it should reduce the amount of L2 cache they are obliged to include... but in terms of real-world performance due to the on-die memory controller alone, I don't think it'll live up to the hype around the issue. The new chip interconnect will be a nice addition at the MacPro level -- finally a competitor to HyperTransport... but again, on most software is it going to be a big win? The return of HyperThreading is also interesting for software that needs lots of threads, but really... with 4+ cores already are most users going to see a difference? Perhaps as software evolves over the next few years, but on the day these things ship I doubt it.

Well, I was wondering why I should wait for Nehalem when a quad or 8 way Penryn would surely do just fine. And surely, in light of current Mac Pros... Grr...the GPU is the more exciting prospect? A 9900 will seem very special after an Ati 1900 I would have thought? And in terms of 3D...Lightwave...the odd game, lots of Photoshopping, a quad or 8 core with a decent GPU would do me just fine.

Even most consumer Apple apps only seem to use 1 and a half cores half the time, heh. I think the big win is going to have to come from Software makers over the next few years.

Didn't programmers use to have to consider the chips in the Amiga? Are programmers just aiming for the 'middle ground' with their code? Are they writing lazy 'mono-thread' code..? Or do they just need to wait until Quad/Duo core reaches critical mass before they change the 'mhz' culture code?

I guess you can provide insight into that...

The GPU core tightly coupled to the CPU may be the most interesting technology. Intel has come a long way with their integrated GPUs, and I would guess that this thing is the next generation after the current X3100 and it will benefit from high speed interconnects with the CPU and the CPU's on-chip memory controller. There is no doubt that all the high-end GPU fans will slag this mercilessly just like they do the X3100 and its predecessors... but the fact remains that for the iMac and MacBook this will be a big step up. Possibly a very big step up.

Well, it seems Intel are coming round the mountain with GPUs. If they're going to exceed the x3100 then surely you'll have GPU performance in excess of a Nintendo Wii? Hey, don't knock it folks. Nintendo have bowed out the arms race and seem to be doing ok... But that's one thing... Apple's Mac Pro's should not be bowing out the gpu arms race...heh. Jan 15th seems ages away...

Quote:
What's Nehalem going to offer worth waiting a year for?

Yeah, that's my point. With Penyrn the transition to 45nm is a win, along with various architectural refinements... Nehalem is going to bring a bunch of new forward-looking stuff, but its not clear how big an improvement will be delivered on day 1.

But like many forward thinking things...we're not going to see the benefit until Quad core and maybe even 8core are mainstream? Most software seems to be only just emerging from the dark ages in terms of threading?

Looks at Photoshop. Apple demo'd funhouse as a real time filters app. Yet, did Adobe put that realtime functionality in? Nooooope.

Software makers have to get on board. Maybe it will be the 'Coco' Mac developing 'young guns' that will show what the Mac can really do now we have Leopard out.

Addendum: I just came across an Intel page discussing Nehalem, and the stuff it talks about is mostly of interest to Intel and PC makers. It is aimed at created a chip family that scales from the low end to the high end, from the low-power to the high-power. There is no discussion of specific performance enhancements or new technologies that should make a buyer wait for it. Laptops and AIO machines will benefit the most, it looks like.

A further reason for Apple's laptop sales curve to increase.

But a dinosaur like me wants a honking quad/8 core gpu monster. Hmmm.

A commendable post, Programmer. Thankyou for doing the leg work. You've certainly given me leave to buy the Mac Pro without worrying about being left behind by Nehalem. After an 8 year wait...I think Feb' might be the time to 'come home'. *Looks to the horizon.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #352 of 399
12/17/07 at 7:35am
PS. I've kinda chatted inbetween your quote. Kinda hard to see in blue...

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #353 of 399
12/17/07 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

PS. I've kinda chatted inbetween your quote. Kinda hard to see in blue...

Thanks for pointing it out, I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. I think you need to learn to use the
Quote:
UBB quoting directives

.



The Amiga had multiple special purpose chips, but only one "main processor". The special purpose chips were fed sequences of commands, but these weren't the same as a fully general purpose instruction set like is found in a full fledged CPU. The first mainstream desktop machines with multiple processors started showing up in the mid-90s, although there had been many specialized machines before that (including add-on boards, super computers, etc.). Some of the early attempts provided an extra processor specifically to do graphics (the first attempts at a graphics coprocessor).

Multi-threaded programming is hard, and the tools & languages currently provided for developers to do their thing aren't very good. Frankly, you probably don't want a lot of the programmers out their writing multi-threaded programs directly because it is easy to create poorly performing, unstable multi-threaded software. This is why sophisticated system software services like OpenGL, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, CoreAudio, etc. are extremely valuable... Apple takes care of the hard parts and let's the application developers get their apps done faster and simpler. Over time the tools will improve and make the task of creating multi-threaded software easier and safer. In the meantime you have to wait for the more highly skilled developers to "do it the hard way". Only relatively recently have multi-core chips become common enough to really be worthy of the attention of most developers... previously it was only a few companies who targeted these machines.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #354 of 399
12/17/07 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

I think you are mistaken. Expect the 8-core Mac Pro to have a staring role in the January 15th SteveNote.
And I also don't see how it's not going to be one of the centerpieces of Steves's message January 15th. I.E. All the pieces to the new Mac Pro will be in place by January 15, 2008. There's absolutely no reason to think it's going to be later than that.

AMEN BROTHER!
MacPro 12 core
30" & 23" Apple Cinema HD Displays
PowerBook G4 550, MacBook Pro 2.2
Ipod 1G and 5G, Shuffle 2G, iPhone 3G
Reply
MacPro 12 core
30" & 23" Apple Cinema HD Displays
PowerBook G4 550, MacBook Pro 2.2
Ipod 1G and 5G, Shuffle 2G, iPhone 3G
Reply
post #355 of 399
12/18/07 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gugy View Post

AMEN BROTHER!

Just in case some are still confused about the penryn launches, here's what I believe is a really nice slide of Intel's 2008 schedule:



Merry Christmas.
Reply
Reply
post #356 of 399
12/20/07 at 5:57am
Quote:
The Amiga had multiple special purpose chips, but only one "main processor". The special purpose chips were fed sequences of commands, but these weren't the same as a fully general purpose instruction set like is found in a full fledged CPU. The first mainstream desktop machines with multiple processors started showing up in the mid-90s, although there had been many specialized machines before that (including add-on boards, super computers, etc.). Some of the early attempts provided an extra processor specifically to do graphics (the first attempts at a graphics coprocessor).

Multi-threaded programming is hard, and the tools & languages currently provided for developers to do their thing aren't very good. Frankly, you probably don't want a lot of the programmers out their writing multi-threaded programs directly because it is easy to create poorly performing, unstable multi-threaded software. This is why sophisticated system software services like OpenGL, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, CoreAudio, etc. are extremely valuable... Apple takes care of the hard parts and let's the application developers get their apps done faster and simpler. Over time the tools will improve and make the task of creating multi-threaded software easier and safer. In the meantime you have to wait for the more highly skilled developers to "do it the hard way". Only relatively recently have multi-core chips become common enough to really be worthy of the attention of most developers... previously it was only a few companies who targeted these machines.

Noted.

I guess we're just going to have to be patient with the multi-threading thing. I would have thought with programmers working on the multi-chip 360 and the PS3 consoles that design of the chips/architecture would create a mainstream environment for threading to go mainstream...especially as they move to squeeze every drop of performance out of them. I would have thought that will help or contribute to the threading gene pool in the next 3 years as these beasts hit critical mass in their millions upon millions. The incentive to multi-thread, financially will be there? And these developers can feed the techniques back into the land of computers?

Until then, at least I can be thankful that Lightwave will take advantage of as many cores as one can throw at it (according to one Newtek guy I emailed...) Plus, I guess I can play the odd game of Eve Online, some Photoshop work...all while LWave renders in the background...and do all this using Leopard's Spaces. I guess it's not all about individual apps. Sometimes the user can just multitask...that's one way to get the most out of yeh cores in the meantime... Heh.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #357 of 399
12/20/07 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

I think you are mistaken. Expect the 8-core Mac Pro to have a staring role in the January 15th SteveNote. I will be in shock if it's not January 15.

Prepare to be in shock. See here. Although, if true, that certainly cannot be laid at Apple's door.

I still would be extremely disappointed if there is not a least a refresh of the dual core version of Mac Pro during MWSF. The only reason for not refreshing it would be if it is slowly being phased out of their product line.
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
post #358 of 399
12/20/07 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by donebylee View Post

Prepare to be in shock. See here. Although, if true, that certainly cannot be laid at Apple's door.

I still would be extremely disappointed if there is not a least a refresh of the dual core version of Mac Pro during MWSF. The only reason for not refreshing it would be if it is slowly being phased out of their product line.

Those quads delayed are not Xeons, they are desktop quads and Apple doesn't use any desktop cpus from Intel.
Xeon penryns have been available since late november, most manufacturers have announced workstations and servers using those new penryn Xeons, but most will only be available late december or january.
Apple may be waiting to have enough new chips (and i5400 chipsets), and sell much of their current inventory before releasing a new Mac Pro.
Especially if the line up comes with 8 cores all the way, I really think that Apple will announce it at MWSF (8 cores starting at $2200! since those new chips are priced like the old dual-core woodcrest ones).
The question is: will they release something in between the dual-core iMac and a 8-core Mac Pro in the desktop segment?
Reply
Reply
post #359 of 399
12/20/07 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Xeon penryns have been available since late november, most manufacturers have announced workstations and servers using those new penryn Xeons, but most will only be available late december or january.

Those are differing ideas of available. I'm sure the chip has been out in sample quantities but I haven't heard of anyone shipping any machines at all.

Quote:
Apple may be waiting to have enough new chips (and i5400 chipsets), and sell much of their current inventory before releasing a new Mac Pro.
Especially if the line up comes with 8 cores all the way, I really think that Apple will announce it at MWSF (8 cores starting at $2200! since those new chips are priced like the old dual-core woodcrest ones).
The question is: will they release something in between the dual-core iMac and a 8-core Mac Pro in the desktop segment?

Personally, I hope so. Apple used to offer PowerMacs as low as $1499.
Reply
Reply
post #360 of 399
12/20/07 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by donebylee View Post

Prepare to be in shock. See here. Although, if true, that certainly cannot be laid at Apple's door.

I still would be extremely disappointed if there is not a least a refresh of the dual core version of Mac Pro during MWSF. The only reason for not refreshing it would be if it is slowly being phased out of their product line.

This is why AMD can't die out. If they do, Intel have no reason to make an effort. They only need to be better than their competition to make the sale.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pros