Even before Woodcrest, Apple could build a quad Mac with the Yonah-based Sossaman (Xeon LV, 667FSB, 2M cache) chips:
- quad 1.66GHz Xeon LV (2x$209) ---? $1999
- quad 2.00GHz Xeon LV (2x$423) ---? $2499
It's not a 64-bit system, but there are some applications that are not 64-bit but are "core/processor" aware that would greatly benefit from quad-core (even @ 32-bit) systems...
Just to say that in the months to come Apple will (finally) have a lot of chips to choose from to build Macs.
Will they be bold enough to please everybody with lower cost headless Macs?
Even before Woodcrest, Apple could build a quad Mac with the Yonah-based Sossaman (Xeon LV, 667FSB, 2M cache) chips:
- quad 1.66GHz Xeon LV (2x$209) ---? $1999
- quad 2.00GHz Xeon LV (2x$423) ---? $2499
It's not a 64-bit system, but there are some applications that are not 64-bit but are "core/processor" aware that would greatly benefit from quad-core (even @ 32-bit) systems...
Just to say that in the months to come Apple will (finally) have a lot of chips to choose from to build Macs.
Will they be bold enough to please everybody with lower cost headless Macs?
We'll certainly know at the WWDC.
I doubt if we'll see Sossman.
But, I would be more than willing to pay $4,000 for a dual Woodcrest machine. Esp. if it had either Crossfire, or SLI, though I prefer ATI boards. While Nvidia is slightly better for games, ATI is better for 3D work. Either is more than good enough for 2D, though, again, ATI is much better for video.
Also, I'd love to see 2 removable front bays again. No excuse for machines at this price level, and size. The G5's had room for one more half height drive above the DVD. It could have been a replaceable bay.
You know, my first Mac was a 950. It cost, in early 1992, $6,000. That didn't include the keyboard ($189), or a CD player because there wasn't any for internal mounting. I bought a Toshiba 2x speed, which was the fastest model at the time ($999), and reworked the computer in my machine shop downstairs. I was the first person in the country (at least) to have an internal CD-ROM.
The point is that many are willing to pay more to get more.
Jobs has screwed that up since he first came out with the Mac, and he's been screwing it up ever since he came back. The pro machines have been getting less and less versatile. He only put two optical bays back on the later G4's because of all the screaming, and took them away as soon as he could. It's a shame. There is NO reason why a $2,000 to $3,300 machine shouldn't have 6 slots and four internal drive bays, at least 2 of which would be external.
I remember when a Powermac came out with 3 slots, and he was asked why he didn't release a bigger machine like the older ones, the 9600, for example (which I also have).
His response that that would be "only" 5% of their customers. We, in the business were agog! Apple was selling almost 4 million machines a year, at the time (before they fell further). 5% would have been about 200 thousand, at the then price of over $5,500. That would have been $1.1 billion !
There usually are 3 models of powerMac's but this one here
Quote:
- under $2000 with a single Conroe chip 1066 FSB
- under $3000 with a single Woodcrest chip 1333 FSB
Is pretty much the same machine.
If you go to the Apple store there is usually 3, or 4 configurable tiers to chose from for the PowerMac. But I'm pretty sure they will add a conroe version either once the processor is ready, or after they reach a certain point in sales. But a single woodcrest makes little sense. Conroe is almost the same processor as the woodcrest, but it's designed for single socket use. There really is no reason to hamper the abilities of a woodcrest by using it in a single socket with conroe coming right after it.
BTW Apple tried the headless Mac, and it was their biggest failed computer in years. Even with the elegant design of the cube there was little demand for it, and it was thusly discontinued almost overnight.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
While Nvidia is slightly better for games, ATI is better for 3D work. Either is more than good enough for 2D, though, again, ATI is much better for video.
I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but the Quadro is by far the best 3D graphics card for pro 3D use.
There usually are 3 models of powerMac's but this one here
Is pretty much the same machine.
If you go to the Apple store there is usually 3, or 4 configurable tiers to chose from for the PowerMac. But I'm pretty sure they will add a conroe version either once the processor is ready, or after they reach a certain point in sales. But a single woodcrest makes little sense. Conroe is almost the same processor as the woodcrest, but it's designed for single socket use. There really is no reason to hamper the abilities of a woodcrest by using it in a single socket with conroe coming right after it.
BTW Apple tried the headless Mac, and it was their biggest failed computer in years. Even with the elegant design of the cube there was little demand for it, and it was thusly discontinued almost overnight.
I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but the Quadro is by far the best 3D graphics card for pro 3D use.
The Cube had poor marketing ? an Apple trademark.
Apple failed to make sure that people knew that it was not only fully upgradeable, but that it had an extra slot as well. People looked at it, and didn't understand that. When I would explain it to them, they would be very surprised.
I hope that the Powermacs will be smilarly priced to the current models, and I ESPECIALLY hope that they don't try bullshit graphics card markups.
That's actually my hope. But, if we got more of a machine, I would pay more.
I would even buy a 4 chip machine, if they came out with one. Jobs wants to use Macs in Pixar. He's said that. It would have to be pretty good for the render farm.
Above all, they priced the Cube very poorly. It was more expensive and less expandable than the equivilent PowerMac G4s of the time. They thought people would pay a significant premium for the compact size and near-silent operation, but they were wrong.
The Mac mini shows they learned their lessons from the G4 Cube: it's aimed at clear market segments that don't overlap other products and the pricing is better. I'd still say it's a poor value if you need to buy an LCD and keyboard for it, though -- the price of all three items together gets up into iMac territory.
This is fine except that it's doubtful that Apple would use a single socket Woodcrest system. A 1333 MHz FSB and 3+ GHz single socket system is by definition a Conroe Extreme Edition system.
So:
$1599 2.40 GHz Conroe with 1066 FSB
$1999 2.66 GHz Conroe with 1066 FSB
$2599 2x2.66 GHz Woodcrest with 1066 FSB, maybe 1333 FSB
$3299 2x3.00 GHz Woodcrest with 1066 FSB, maybe 1333 FSB.
The troubling aspect will be the likely existence of $1000+, 3+ GHz, 1333 FSB Conroe Extreme Editions. There will be Conroe EE systems at 3+ GHz selling for the same price as Apple's standard config which will probably be one speed grade lower. I suppose users could upgrade by themselves.
The other kicker is the huge difference between a Conroe system and a Woodcrest system. It's so huge Apple should just make a midrange Conroe desktop and a professional Woodcrest desktop. One will be a mainstream single socket, single FSB system using 2 channel DDR2. The other will be a 2 socket, 2 FSB system using 4 channel FB-DIMM, a totally different memory architecture.
Quote:
Even before Woodcrest, Apple could build a quad Mac with the Yonah-based Sossaman ... It's not a 64-bit system, but there are some applications that are not 64-bit but are "core/processor" aware that would greatly benefit from quad-core (even @ 32-bit) systems...
If Apple wants to make a Intel quad today, they can simply use Pentium 4 CPUs, not much different from the G5 though. They either wait for Woodcrest, or use AMD.
Quote:
Will they be bold enough to please everybody with lower cost headless Macs?
Even with the elegant design of the cube there was little demand for it, and it was thusly discontinued almost overnight.
I think that there's another factor in the discontinuation of the cube. When the cube came out, its 450 or 500 MHz G4 was the fastest available, the same processor that was in the G4 towers at the time. The revision of the G4 (to 733 MHz?) was too hot to be in the cube. Had Apple continued to sell it, the cube would not have been a small desktop Apple, but a small, slower desktop Apple. Or perhaps I've forgotten the actual sequence of events. My cube still runs, however.
I'm not saying the cube wasn't great. I loved it once I saw it in person. I was absolutely amazed with it. It wasn't the same as seeing it in a picture online, or in the paper. I imagine the Mac Mini would probably have a similar effect on me. All I'm saying is Apple tried it. Didn't work for them. And they pretty much have the bases covered without it. So don't get your hopes up. They covered it's typical demographic in their other machines.
There is one BIG THING you have to remember. What these current machines are not is designed from the beginning knowing they would have only an intel processor. The next ones will. The current ones are all legacy computers expecting to use IBM PPC's, and a possible intel transition, and their designs reflect that in terms of what they offer graphics wise etc. etc. etc. Now Apple can start thinking in different terms from the beginning about graphics, and actually use things that other PC manufacturers are using. Apple has a history of re-inventing computing. They didn't use a new design on any of these computers yet (like they normally would) because they intend to blow our minds now. You can count on that.
eweek reports Merom will have 20% performance improvement over Yonah with the same energy usage as Yonah.
Conroe will have 40% performance improvement with 40% energy reduction in contrast to Yonah.
Woodcrest will have 80% performance improvement vs 35% energy reduction in contrast to the current Xeon.
Intel intends for a dramatic difference between the two.
And they should. The Netburst architecture was really losing steam. Anandtech's reviews showed that a 2Ghz Yonah was pretty much beating a Pentium D 3Ghz in almost every bench.
80% over current Xeon's is where Woodcrest needs to be. Besting Yonah by %80 would be a far more difficult task.
There is one BIG THING you have to remember. What these current machines are not is designed from the beginning knowing they would have only an intel processor. The next ones will. The current ones are all legacy computers expecting to use IBM PPC's, and a possible intel transition, and their designs reflect that in terms of what they offer graphics wise etc. etc. etc. Now Apple can start thinking in different terms from the beginning about graphics, and actually use things that other PC manufacturers are using. Apple has a history of re-inventing computing. They didn't use a new design on any of these computers yet (like they normally would) because they intend to blow our minds now. You can count on that. [/B]
This is very true, and people would do well to remember it.
These first machines are designed to make CURRENT Apple users comfortable with the idea of the Intel chip.
The next series, I hear, should be very different.
And they should. The Netburst architecture was really losing steam. Anandtech's reviews showed that a 2Ghz Yonah was pretty much beating a Pentium D 3Ghz in almost every bench.
80% over current Xeon's is where Woodcrest needs to be. Besting Yonah by %80 would be a far more difficult task.
When they bring Hyperthreading back, things will get interesting.
When they bring Hyperthreading back, things will get interesting.
I'm not sure they even need it. With the new architecture redesign they can probably ramp up a new faster processor faster than it would take them to try to restructure processors with hyper-threading. They came up with a whole new redesign for these processors because Moore's law had caught up with them. Moore's law is also why they were using hyper-threading. I always thought it was their last ditch effort to get more performance out of their designs as the speeds were not doubling any longer, but the number of the transistors were.
It may have also caused some of the problems. Only intel, and their R&D department know that for sure though; and that's if they actually tried to deduce what was hampering them in the first place.
Hyper-threading seemed to be their wanna be answer to altivec, but I always thought that the altivec SIMD was more effective for Mac users because of our use of photoshop, and that the majority of our developers were were smart enough to actually take advantage of the designs that were developed for use by the AIM.
Has intel even mentioned Hyper-Threading in their future plans?
I'm not sure they even need it. With the new architecture redesign they can probably ramp up a new faster processor faster than it would take them to try to restructure processors with hyper-threading. They came up with a whole new redesign for these processors because Moore's law had caught up with them. Moore's law is also why they were using hyper-threading. I always thought it was their last ditch effort to get more performance out of their designs as the speeds were not doubling any longer, but the number of the transistors were.
It may have also caused some of the problems. Only intel, and their R&D department know that for sure though; and that's if they actually tried to deduce what was hampering them in the first place.
Hyper-threading seemed to be their wanna be answer to altivec, but I always thought that the altivec SIMD was more effective for Mac users because of our use of photoshop, and that the majority of our developers were were smart enough to actually take advantage of the designs that were developed for use by the AIM.
Has intel even mentioned Hyper-Threading in their future plans?
Seems inevitable Intel will need to bring back some form of multithreading.
Seems it would be more efficient to give two cores the ability to run like four or four the ability to run like eight, than to have actually have more cores.
Comments
- under $2000 with a single Conroe chip 1066 FSB
- under $3000 with a single Woodcrest chip 1333 FSB
- under $4000 with two Woodcrest chips 1333 FSB
with 2 options for each model:
- $1499 2.40GHz Conroe ($316)
- $1999 2.67GHz Conroe ($530) + better GPU/biggerHD/more RAM
- $2299 2.67GHz Woodcrest ($700) + better GPU
- $2499 3.00GHz Woodcrest ($850)
- $2999 dual 2.67GHz Woodcrest ($1400)
- $3299 dual 3.00GHz Woodcrest ($1700)
(cpu list price)
Even before Woodcrest, Apple could build a quad Mac with the Yonah-based Sossaman (Xeon LV, 667FSB, 2M cache) chips:
- quad 1.66GHz Xeon LV (2x$209) ---? $1999
- quad 2.00GHz Xeon LV (2x$423) ---? $2499
It's not a 64-bit system, but there are some applications that are not 64-bit but are "core/processor" aware that would greatly benefit from quad-core (even @ 32-bit) systems...
Just to say that in the months to come Apple will (finally) have a lot of chips to choose from to build Macs.
Will they be bold enough to please everybody with lower cost headless Macs?
We'll certainly know at the WWDC.
Originally posted by mjteix
and why not 3 models of "PowerMacs":
- under $2000 with a single Conroe chip 1066 FSB
- under $3000 with a single Woodcrest chip 1333 FSB
- under $4000 with two Woodcrest chips 1333 FSB
with 2 options for each model:
- $1499 2.40GHz Conroe ($316)
- $1999 2.67GHz Conroe ($530) + better GPU/biggerHD/more RAM
- $2299 2.67GHz Woodcrest ($700) + better GPU
- $2499 3.00GHz Woodcrest ($850)
- $2999 dual 2.67GHz Woodcrest ($1400)
- $3299 dual 3.00GHz Woodcrest ($1700)
(cpu list price)
Even before Woodcrest, Apple could build a quad Mac with the Yonah-based Sossaman (Xeon LV, 667FSB, 2M cache) chips:
- quad 1.66GHz Xeon LV (2x$209) ---? $1999
- quad 2.00GHz Xeon LV (2x$423) ---? $2499
It's not a 64-bit system, but there are some applications that are not 64-bit but are "core/processor" aware that would greatly benefit from quad-core (even @ 32-bit) systems...
Just to say that in the months to come Apple will (finally) have a lot of chips to choose from to build Macs.
Will they be bold enough to please everybody with lower cost headless Macs?
We'll certainly know at the WWDC.
I doubt if we'll see Sossman.
But, I would be more than willing to pay $4,000 for a dual Woodcrest machine. Esp. if it had either Crossfire, or SLI, though I prefer ATI boards. While Nvidia is slightly better for games, ATI is better for 3D work. Either is more than good enough for 2D, though, again, ATI is much better for video.
Also, I'd love to see 2 removable front bays again. No excuse for machines at this price level, and size. The G5's had room for one more half height drive above the DVD. It could have been a replaceable bay.
You know, my first Mac was a 950. It cost, in early 1992, $6,000. That didn't include the keyboard ($189), or a CD player because there wasn't any for internal mounting. I bought a Toshiba 2x speed, which was the fastest model at the time ($999), and reworked the computer in my machine shop downstairs. I was the first person in the country (at least) to have an internal CD-ROM.
The point is that many are willing to pay more to get more.
Jobs has screwed that up since he first came out with the Mac, and he's been screwing it up ever since he came back. The pro machines have been getting less and less versatile. He only put two optical bays back on the later G4's because of all the screaming, and took them away as soon as he could. It's a shame. There is NO reason why a $2,000 to $3,300 machine shouldn't have 6 slots and four internal drive bays, at least 2 of which would be external.
I remember when a Powermac came out with 3 slots, and he was asked why he didn't release a bigger machine like the older ones, the 9600, for example (which I also have).
His response that that would be "only" 5% of their customers. We, in the business were agog! Apple was selling almost 4 million machines a year, at the time (before they fell further). 5% would have been about 200 thousand, at the then price of over $5,500. That would have been $1.1 billion !
Foolish man.
I hope he's come to his senses now.
- under $2000 with a single Conroe chip 1066 FSB
- under $3000 with a single Woodcrest chip 1333 FSB
Is pretty much the same machine.
If you go to the Apple store there is usually 3, or 4 configurable tiers to chose from for the PowerMac. But I'm pretty sure they will add a conroe version either once the processor is ready, or after they reach a certain point in sales. But a single woodcrest makes little sense. Conroe is almost the same processor as the woodcrest, but it's designed for single socket use. There really is no reason to hamper the abilities of a woodcrest by using it in a single socket with conroe coming right after it.
BTW Apple tried the headless Mac, and it was their biggest failed computer in years. Even with the elegant design of the cube there was little demand for it, and it was thusly discontinued almost overnight.
Originally posted by melgross
While Nvidia is slightly better for games, ATI is better for 3D work. Either is more than good enough for 2D, though, again, ATI is much better for video.
I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but the Quadro is by far the best 3D graphics card for pro 3D use.
Originally posted by onlooker
There usually are 3 models of powerMac's but this one here
Is pretty much the same machine.
If you go to the Apple store there is usually 3, or 4 configurable tiers to chose from for the PowerMac. But I'm pretty sure they will add a conroe version either once the processor is ready, or after they reach a certain point in sales. But a single woodcrest makes little sense. Conroe is almost the same processor as the woodcrest, but it's designed for single socket use. There really is no reason to hamper the abilities of a woodcrest by using it in a single socket with conroe coming right after it.
BTW Apple tried the headless Mac, and it was their biggest failed computer in years. Even with the elegant design of the cube there was little demand for it, and it was thusly discontinued almost overnight.
I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but the Quadro is by far the best 3D graphics card for pro 3D use.
The Cube had poor marketing ? an Apple trademark.
Apple failed to make sure that people knew that it was not only fully upgradeable, but that it had an extra slot as well. People looked at it, and didn't understand that. When I would explain it to them, they would be very surprised.
Originally posted by onlooker
I'm not sure what gave you that idea, but the Quadro is by far the best 3D graphics card for pro 3D use. [/B]
There would be plenty of disagreements on that one, believe me. But, it's the ONLY high end board available for us, unfortunately.
Originally posted by Placebo
I hope that the Powermacs will be smilarly priced to the current models, and I ESPECIALLY hope that they don't try bullshit graphics card markups.
That's actually my hope. But, if we got more of a machine, I would pay more.
I would even buy a 4 chip machine, if they came out with one. Jobs wants to use Macs in Pixar. He's said that. It would have to be pretty good for the render farm.
Originally posted by melgross
The Cube had poor marketing ? an Apple trademark.
Above all, they priced the Cube very poorly. It was more expensive and less expandable than the equivilent PowerMac G4s of the time. They thought people would pay a significant premium for the compact size and near-silent operation, but they were wrong.
The Mac mini shows they learned their lessons from the G4 Cube: it's aimed at clear market segments that don't overlap other products and the pricing is better. I'd still say it's a poor value if you need to buy an LCD and keyboard for it, though -- the price of all three items together gets up into iMac territory.
Originally posted by melgross
There would be plenty of disagreements on that one, believe me. But, it's the ONLY high end board available for us, unfortunately.
I'd like for to show me a benchmark in a Pro 3D app where a QuadroFX 4500 didn't win.
Originally posted by mjteix
with 2 options for each model:
- $1499 2.40GHz Conroe ($316)
- $1999 2.67GHz Conroe ($530) + better GPU/biggerHD/more RAM
- $2299 2.67GHz Woodcrest ($700) + better GPU
- $2499 3.00GHz Woodcrest ($850)
- $2999 dual 2.67GHz Woodcrest ($1400)
- $3299 dual 3.00GHz Woodcrest ($1700)
This is fine except that it's doubtful that Apple would use a single socket Woodcrest system. A 1333 MHz FSB and 3+ GHz single socket system is by definition a Conroe Extreme Edition system.
So:
$1599 2.40 GHz Conroe with 1066 FSB
$1999 2.66 GHz Conroe with 1066 FSB
$2599 2x2.66 GHz Woodcrest with 1066 FSB, maybe 1333 FSB
$3299 2x3.00 GHz Woodcrest with 1066 FSB, maybe 1333 FSB.
The troubling aspect will be the likely existence of $1000+, 3+ GHz, 1333 FSB Conroe Extreme Editions. There will be Conroe EE systems at 3+ GHz selling for the same price as Apple's standard config which will probably be one speed grade lower. I suppose users could upgrade by themselves.
The other kicker is the huge difference between a Conroe system and a Woodcrest system. It's so huge Apple should just make a midrange Conroe desktop and a professional Woodcrest desktop. One will be a mainstream single socket, single FSB system using 2 channel DDR2. The other will be a 2 socket, 2 FSB system using 4 channel FB-DIMM, a totally different memory architecture.
Even before Woodcrest, Apple could build a quad Mac with the Yonah-based Sossaman ... It's not a 64-bit system, but there are some applications that are not 64-bit but are "core/processor" aware that would greatly benefit from quad-core (even @ 32-bit) systems...
If Apple wants to make a Intel quad today, they can simply use Pentium 4 CPUs, not much different from the G5 though. They either wait for Woodcrest, or use AMD.
Will they be bold enough to please everybody with lower cost headless Macs?
No. They are interested in low margin products.
iMac 17": 2.0GHz Conroe LV (same thing as Merom, just ships earlier)
iMac 20": 2.3GHz Conroe LV
Good Mac Pro: 2.4GHz Conroe
Better Mac Pro: 3.0GHz Conroe
Best Mac Pro: 2x 3.0GHz Woodcrest
Originally posted by onlooker
Even with the elegant design of the cube there was little demand for it, and it was thusly discontinued almost overnight.
I think that there's another factor in the discontinuation of the cube. When the cube came out, its 450 or 500 MHz G4 was the fastest available, the same processor that was in the G4 towers at the time. The revision of the G4 (to 733 MHz?) was too hot to be in the cube. Had Apple continued to sell it, the cube would not have been a small desktop Apple, but a small, slower desktop Apple. Or perhaps I've forgotten the actual sequence of events. My cube still runs, however.
There is one BIG THING you have to remember. What these current machines are not is designed from the beginning knowing they would have only an intel processor. The next ones will. The current ones are all legacy computers expecting to use IBM PPC's, and a possible intel transition, and their designs reflect that in terms of what they offer graphics wise etc. etc. etc. Now Apple can start thinking in different terms from the beginning about graphics, and actually use things that other PC manufacturers are using. Apple has a history of re-inventing computing. They didn't use a new design on any of these computers yet (like they normally would) because they intend to blow our minds now. You can count on that.
Conroe will have 40% performance improvement with 40% energy reduction in contrast to Yonah.
Woodcrest will have 80% performance improvement vs 35% energy reduction in contrast to the current Xeon.
Intel intends for a dramatic difference between the two.
Originally posted by TenoBell
eweek reports Merom will have 20% performance improvement over Yonah with the same energy usage as Yonah.
Conroe will have 40% performance improvement with 40% energy reduction in contrast to Yonah.
Woodcrest will have 80% performance improvement vs 35% energy reduction in contrast to the current Xeon.
Intel intends for a dramatic difference between the two.
And they should. The Netburst architecture was really losing steam. Anandtech's reviews showed that a 2Ghz Yonah was pretty much beating a Pentium D 3Ghz in almost every bench.
80% over current Xeon's is where Woodcrest needs to be. Besting Yonah by %80 would be a far more difficult task.
Originally posted by onlooker
There is one BIG THING you have to remember. What these current machines are not is designed from the beginning knowing they would have only an intel processor. The next ones will. The current ones are all legacy computers expecting to use IBM PPC's, and a possible intel transition, and their designs reflect that in terms of what they offer graphics wise etc. etc. etc. Now Apple can start thinking in different terms from the beginning about graphics, and actually use things that other PC manufacturers are using. Apple has a history of re-inventing computing. They didn't use a new design on any of these computers yet (like they normally would) because they intend to blow our minds now. You can count on that.
This is very true, and people would do well to remember it.
These first machines are designed to make CURRENT Apple users comfortable with the idea of the Intel chip.
The next series, I hear, should be very different.
Originally posted by hmurchison
And they should. The Netburst architecture was really losing steam. Anandtech's reviews showed that a 2Ghz Yonah was pretty much beating a Pentium D 3Ghz in almost every bench.
80% over current Xeon's is where Woodcrest needs to be. Besting Yonah by %80 would be a far more difficult task.
When they bring Hyperthreading back, things will get interesting.
Originally posted by melgross
When they bring Hyperthreading back, things will get interesting.
I'm not sure they even need it. With the new architecture redesign they can probably ramp up a new faster processor faster than it would take them to try to restructure processors with hyper-threading. They came up with a whole new redesign for these processors because Moore's law had caught up with them. Moore's law is also why they were using hyper-threading. I always thought it was their last ditch effort to get more performance out of their designs as the speeds were not doubling any longer, but the number of the transistors were.
It may have also caused some of the problems. Only intel, and their R&D department know that for sure though; and that's if they actually tried to deduce what was hampering them in the first place.
Hyper-threading seemed to be their wanna be answer to altivec, but I always thought that the altivec SIMD was more effective for Mac users because of our use of photoshop, and that the majority of our developers were were smart enough to actually take advantage of the designs that were developed for use by the AIM.
Has intel even mentioned Hyper-Threading in their future plans?
Originally posted by onlooker
I'm not sure they even need it. With the new architecture redesign they can probably ramp up a new faster processor faster than it would take them to try to restructure processors with hyper-threading. They came up with a whole new redesign for these processors because Moore's law had caught up with them. Moore's law is also why they were using hyper-threading. I always thought it was their last ditch effort to get more performance out of their designs as the speeds were not doubling any longer, but the number of the transistors were.
It may have also caused some of the problems. Only intel, and their R&D department know that for sure though; and that's if they actually tried to deduce what was hampering them in the first place.
Hyper-threading seemed to be their wanna be answer to altivec, but I always thought that the altivec SIMD was more effective for Mac users because of our use of photoshop, and that the majority of our developers were were smart enough to actually take advantage of the designs that were developed for use by the AIM.
Has intel even mentioned Hyper-Threading in their future plans?
I mentioned it because, they did.
Sometime in late 2007.
Seems it would be more efficient to give two cores the ability to run like four or four the ability to run like eight, than to have actually have more cores.