Apple may get Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs sooner than expected

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


    I'm not sure if the author of this article is plain incompetent or if Sandy Bridge architecture is a total dud. But if my laptop goes from 2 cores to four at similar or slightly faster clock speed, and a more tightly integrated graphics solution, and additional vector math instructions, I'd expect compute performance to at least double. Now, doubling compute speed is IMO more than just a "incrementally" faster performance or "relatively moderate jump in performance".



    So either the article mixes up laptop and desktop CPUs, and the laptop CPUs will remain dual-core (except for energy hungry "extreme" editions), or the new architecture sucks, or the performance increase is more than just "incremental" and "moderate".



    The Vector instruction set won't help your performance if your system isn't offloading to this instruction set to perform all those requests best served by this instruction set.



    Bulldozer chipset from AMD:



    Quote:

    Based on the information provided by AMD during its annual Analyst Day last November, the first Bulldozer chip code-named Zambezi (which belongs to Orochi family, according to the firm) will feature eight x86 processing engines with multi-threading technology, two 128-bit FMAC floating point units, shared L2 cache, shared L3 cache as well as an Advanced Quad-Channel Memory Sub-System (IMC - Integrated Memory Controller), higher memory level parallelism that's far more superior to what today?s Phenom II houses. AMD also states that the new CPU will feature ?Extensive New Power Management Innovations?. The new chips that belong to Bulldozer?s family will also support ?Advanced Vector Extensions? (AVX) that supports 256-bit FP operations.



    All of it is great, assuming the compiler toolkit, OS, and application space are all designed to leverage all these advances.
  • Reply 22 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post


    Great. So where are the Mac Pro's?



    Why did you click onto this article to ask for Mac Pro's. When they come, they will come.
  • Reply 23 of 35
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


    I'm not sure if the author of this article is plain incompetent or if Sandy Bridge architecture is a total dud. But if my laptop goes from 2 cores to four at similar or slightly faster clock speed, and a more tightly integrated graphics solution, and additional vector math instructions, I'd expect compute performance to at least double. Now, doubling compute speed is IMO more than just a "incrementally" faster performance or "relatively moderate jump in performance".



    So either the article mixes up laptop and desktop CPUs, and the laptop CPUs will remain dual-core (except for energy hungry "extreme" editions), or the new architecture sucks, or the performance increase is more than just "incremental" and "moderate".



    Very little software out there today is going to be able to run twice as fast with twice as many cores. Laptop, desktop, doesn't matter. The lion's share of software is meant to run on one processor. This is the reason Intel designed the latest processors to shutdown unused cores and overclock just one core, depending on load. Sad but true.
  • Reply 24 of 35
    kwatsonkwatson Posts: 95member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kwatson View Post


    Ditto. Apple just lost a fair size order of Xserves from me to Dell (R815's - magnificent), about to lose my personal Mac Pro purchase as well. Can only hold out so long, good CPUs for an update have been out for half a year already, no excuse, and tired of toys.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    No, what it tells everyone with any intuitive abilities that you don't run OS X on your Mac Hardware, or if you did you would be making a conscious platform change.



    My point - I can't wait, I've changed platforms (ond OSes) for our project, and Apple has lost our current, and future, business. Only possible exception, my personal computer, if a Mac Pro shows up RSN. Slow is tolerable for a business, slow and mysterious is NOT.
  • Reply 25 of 35
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    I think they're correct to focus on low power for now. Software is still adjusting to 2-4 cores, let alone more, and HDs are the real bottleneck in the system anyway. Once software has adjusted, and SSDs are cheaper, they will have to refocus on performance.
  • Reply 26 of 35
    freakboyfreakboy Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    I think they're correct to focus on low power for now. Software is still adjusting to 2-4 cores, let alone more, and HDs are the real bottleneck in the system anyway. Once software has adjusted, and SSDs are cheaper, they will have to refocus on performance.



    This really isn't exactly true. Most parallel code will utilize as many cores as you have. The reason performance drops with more cores is that all those cores generally share one memory bandwidth and one HD bandwidth. Since both types of memory access are orders of magnitude slower than what each core can do once it gets its data, a lot of operations don't gain in performance from more cores.



    Intel made a big leap with the Core i7 with 3 memory controllers. There are a few more leaps that need to be made to get multiple cores fed with enough to chew on.
  • Reply 27 of 35
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freakboy View Post


    This really isn't exactly true. Most parallel code will utilize as many cores as you have.



    This is also sort of true. A big problem is that software developers who can actually write good multi-threaded code are in far shorter supply and there are many tasks that don't work well in a multi-threaded fashion.
  • Reply 28 of 35
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    It's worth pointing out that processors are designed to hit certain TDPs. You can have more cores, or you can have faster cores. You will rarely see both.
  • Reply 29 of 35
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post


    Don't even want an AMD chip in mine. I have not had good experience with them at all and prefer the real McCoy thank you very much.



    I wonder about your problems because I've never had an issue with AMD CPUs nor ATI video cards. Bad motherboards yes but you can't blame them on AMD. Assuming Apple puts the same quality effort into their AMD boards I don't see a problem.



    Further I laugh at these statements any way because AMD invented the 64 bit architecture that Intel now uses.



    Dave
  • Reply 30 of 35
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kwatson View Post


    Ditto. Apple just lost a fair size order of Xserves from me to Dell (R815's - magnificent), about to lose my personal Mac Pro purchase as well. Can only hold out so long, good CPUs for an update have been out for half a year already, no excuse, and tired of toys.



    I'm not one to support the bellyaching heard on the forums with regard to the Mac Pros. For the most part I think it is highly misplaced. Apple has seldom updated the Mac Pro at intervals of less than a year and often has gone longer.



    The XServe on the otherhand seems to be in limbo. I'm not convinced it will be around much longer. The lack of updates to a machine that should be simple to update is one issue. The bigger issue seems to be many server editions being installed on Mac Pros instead. Plus the dropping of the XRaid kinda hints at a lack of interest in the server market.



    In a sense the lack of the XRaid or similar Apple branded product sheds a negative veil over XServe. Most likely XRaid wasn't meeting sales expectations but you still need a solution set to attract customers.



    In the end I think it is end of line for Apples rack mount server products. Especially after contracting the line up instead of expanding it.



    As a side note I believe much of the problems with Mac Pros and XServes an their infrequent updates revolves around low sales numbers. Volume isn't there to justify the frequent updates seen on the iMac or laptops. Dell probably moves more servers in one week than Apple does in a year.





    Dave
  • Reply 31 of 35
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,670moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I'm not one to support the bellyaching heard on the forums with regard to the Mac Pros. For the most part I think it is highly misplaced. Apple has seldom updated the Mac Pro at intervals of less than a year and often has gone longer.



    I don't think it's been this long when upgrades were available though. Usually it's because Intel don't have anything for them to upgrade to. It seems like they are making a decision not to use the upgrades that other manufacturers like Dell have been using for over 3 months.



    Obviously right now, their hands are a bit full with the antenna stuff so now that this issue is dying down, maybe they can put some attention on the Mac line again.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Plus the dropping of the XRaid kinda hints at a lack of interest in the server market.



    I don't think OS X Server has really taken off in that market. It's all Linux and Windows Server, which have support in a VPS on cheap hardware. It's only small companies here and there that you see running OS X Server for this task like this one:



    http://innofield.com/Xcloud-Features.html



    It looks really cool though - being able to remote desktop into your server and use the iPhone app to manage it. Maybe Apple needs to do something like this on their own so instead of selling hardware people don't want, just build a data center and offer hosting services, MobileMe, a cloud desktop etc.



    They'd make up volume by getting iWeb users and MobileMe users on subscription plans. A remote server instance running iWeb would be pretty easy to use for managing a web page.
  • Reply 32 of 35
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I don't think it's been this long when upgrades were available though. Usually it's because Intel don't have anything for them to upgrade to. It seems like they are making a decision not to use the upgrades that other manufacturers like Dell have been using for over 3 months.



    Maybe or maybe not. The fact is I've been following Apple long enough to have heard all this noise before. The point is it is not unusual for Apple to drag out product revs.

    Quote:



    Obviously right now, their hands are a bit full with the antenna stuff so now that this issue is dying down, maybe they can put some attention on the Mac line again.



    I totally reject this idea that Apple isn't paying attention to the Mac line up. It just flys in the face of the facts. Already this year we have gotten a new Mini and some rather nice MBP. In the case of the MBPs Apple implemented unique innovations to circumvent Intels screwed up policies. This is far more than is common in the Windows compatible world where cookie cutter solutions exist.



    Now you can say the Mac Pro needs some love right now but that is not the whole line up of Macs. In anyevent I'm sure the new Mac Pro isn't that far away. People just have to have some faith that there is a good reason.

    Quote:





    I don't think OS X Server has really taken off in that market. It's all Linux and Windows Server, which have support in a VPS on cheap hardware. It's only small companies here and there that you see running OS X Server for this task like this one:



    http://innofield.com/Xcloud-Features.html



    It looks really cool though - being able to remote desktop into your server and use the iPhone app to manage it. Maybe Apple needs to do something like this on their own so instead of selling hardware people don't want, just build a data center and offer hosting services, MobileMe, a cloud desktop etc.



    They'd make up volume by getting iWeb users and MobileMe users on subscription plans. A remote server instance running iWeb would be pretty easy to use for managing a web page.



    I just don't think Apple has really tried to sell XServes. For that matter I don't think they have an innovative mind in their server design department. Or maybe they don't grasp user needs.



    For example there is a real need for home servers, especially media servers. So what does Apple come up with, the Mini server which hardly solves the problem. Servers are a good example of where doing a bit of market surveying would do Apple a world of good.



    In the end I don't know what Apple is up to but I'm really hoping for a dramatically redrawn Mac line up in a few weeks.





    Dave
  • Reply 33 of 35
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


    I'm not sure if the author of this article is plain incompetent or if Sandy Bridge architecture is a total dud. But if my laptop goes from 2 cores to four at similar or slightly faster clock speed, and a more tightly integrated graphics solution, and additional vector math instructions, I'd expect compute performance to at least double. Now, doubling compute speed is IMO more than just a "incrementally" faster performance or "relatively moderate jump in performance".



    So either the article mixes up laptop and desktop CPUs, and the laptop CPUs will remain dual-core (except for energy hungry "extreme" editions), or the new architecture sucks, or the performance increase is more than just "incremental" and "moderate".



    Mobile Sandy Bridge dual-core succeeds Arrandale, and mobile Sandy Bridge quad-core succeeds Clarksfield.
  • Reply 34 of 35
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    In the end I don't know what Apple is up to but I'm really hoping for a dramatically redrawn Mac line up in a few weeks.



    +eleventybillion!
  • Reply 35 of 35
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Maybe or maybe not. The fact is I've been following Apple long enough to have heard all this noise before. The point is it is not unusual for Apple to drag out product revs. come up with, the Mini server which hardly solves the problem. Servers are a good example of where doing a bit of market surveying would do Apple a world of good.



    In the end I don't know what Apple is up to but I'm really hoping for a dramatically redrawn Mac line up in a few weeks.





    Dave



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kwatson View Post


    ..... Apple .......... about to lose my personal Mac Pro purchase as well. Can only hold out so long, good CPUs for an update have been out for half a year already, no excuse, and tired of toys.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I'm not one to support the bellyaching heard on the forums with regard to the Mac Pros. For the most part I think it is highly misplaced. Apple has seldom updated the Mac Pro at intervals of less than a year and often has gone longer.

    ............As a side note I believe much of the problems with Mac Pros and XServes an their infrequent updates revolves around low sales numbers. Volume isn't there to justify the frequent updates seen on the iMac or laptops. ?...........

    Dave



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I don't think it's been this long when upgrades were available though. Usually it's because Intel don't have anything for them to upgrade to. It seems like they are making a decision not to use the upgrades that other manufacturers like Dell have been using for over 3 months.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Maybe or maybe not. The fact is I've been following Apple long enough to have heard all this noise before. The point is it is not unusual for Apple to drag out product revs.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Obviously right now, their hands are a bit full with the antenna stuff so now that this issue is dying down, maybe they can put some attention on the Mac line again.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I totally reject this idea that Apple isn't paying attention to the Mac line up. It just flys in the face of the facts. Already this year we have gotten a new Mini and some rather nice MBP. In the case of the MBPs Apple implemented unique innovations to circumvent Intels screwed up policies. This is far more than is common in the Windows compatible world where cookie cutter solutions exist. ?.Dave





    According to MacRumors, it has been about 500 days since the last upgrade of the MacPro which is updated about every 236 days. I agree with Wiz69, that the numbers of MacPros sold probably affects the rate of updates. With MBP and iMacs outselling the MacPros, they are more often upgraded.



    IMO Apple is still very much committed to the Macs and a new MacPro is coming soon?count on it-just be patient.
Sign In or Register to comment.