Intel hurries next-generation chips

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 175
    Great announcements like this make some Mac fans impatient, and I admit to being one. Even so, Photoshop and company will not be ready anytime soon, no matter how quickly Conroe and Woodcrest appear. So we wait and work.
  • Reply 62 of 175
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TKN

    Let us just hope the next generation of PowerMacs actually have space inside for hard drives and more than one optical drive...



    I second that!
  • Reply 63 of 175
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macFanDave

    Where are they getting these names? Penryn? Gesher? Nehalem? They are almost as bad as YellowSheepRiver!



    I like them they sound powerful and godly.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    I agree, though I personally would rule out Conroe from the PowerMac, except maybe for the very cheapest model. I don't understand why someone would speculate that Conroe would be a PowerMac chip. Based on the general intended and markted use, the PowerMac is supposed to be a workstation-type system for heavy 2D, 3D, video and other work, think equivalent systems being those with Xeon DP or Opteron 2xx chips. It looks to me that Conroe is going to be a consumer desktop chip, which would be the equivalent of what is now called Pentium, that isn't dual-socket capable. It would be bad to use consumer grade chips in a workstation.



    I agree I would've thought Conroe would go in the iMac and the Woodcrest would go in the PowerMac (MacPro) & XServes.

    BUt then again Merom and Yonah (Core Duo are Pin compatable)
  • Reply 64 of 175
    bwhalerbwhaler Posts: 260member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Well...thanks to AMD, we're getting these Intel chips earlier. Competition is good.





    I absolutely agree.



    I think the CPU business has woken up and there is finally some competition.



    For too long, Intel, Microsoft, and Dell limited innovation. And it crushed the PC business because it drove the industry into a commodity purchase.



    But things blew up for all three. Microsoft seeded the market with "good enough" products, and is facing Linux. Dell did the same, but now China is looming and can crush their economic model. Intel's potential fall was different. They fell asleep at the R&D wheel, and AMD came along and crushed them



    The move-up of the chips is clearly due to AMD. No longer can Intel sit on advances in technology just because they want to milk every penny out of a chip design. It's a whole new world with AMD trying to leap frog them at every turn.



    The only true innovation in the PC hardware of note has been the GPU. And we have seen stellar advancements in that space in the past 5 years. I hope the CPU space finally returns to that level of competition and innovation.



    And all of this is good for Apple folks. It does suck, however, for Dell, Intel, and Microsoft. But frankly, it couldn't of happened to a more deserving lot.



    They truly made their own bed.
  • Reply 65 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BWhaler

    But things blew up for all three. Microsoft seeded the market with "good enough" products, and is facing Linux. Dell did the same, but now China is looming and can crush their economic model. Intel's potential fall was different. They fell asleep at the R&D wheel, and AMD came along and crushed them



    Taking away a few (or several) percent of their respective market shares hardly qualifies as a "crushing".
  • Reply 66 of 175
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    Taking away a few (or several) percent of their respective market shares hardly qualifies as a "crushing".



    In many instances..."a few and several percent" can qualify as crushing.
  • Reply 67 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    In many instances..."a few and several percent" can qualify as crushing.



    Yes, if you completely ignore the context of what I quoted. Here, it doesn't to the slightest degree that I can imagine. AMD is still 1/5th the sales of Intel, Linux is still 1/20th of what Microsoft does (on the desktop) and the Chinese comuputer assemblers aren't a blip in the US market to have hurt Dell much yet.
  • Reply 68 of 175
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    Yes, if you completely ignore the context of what I quoted. Here, it doesn't to the slightest degree that I can imagine. AMD is still 1/5th the sales of Intel, Linux is still 1/20th of what Microsoft does (on the desktop) and the Chinese comuputer assemblers aren't a blip in the US market to have hurt Dell much yet.



    Depends on the definition of 'crushing'...IE lost almost 10% market share to Firefox and Safari in the last year. To me, that's 'crushing'. IE still has about 85% of the market share but...let's face it, IE is going doooooooown.
  • Reply 69 of 175
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    I think that while Conroe would work just fine in the iMac, and would do a good thing for it by allowing it to compete more evenly with other desktop PC's, Apple WILL go for the Merom. At least in this first revision.



    While none of us can claim to know what is on their minds, it would simply be much cheaper to keep the same machine, but for the newer plug compatiple chip. In early 2007, perhaps for Macworld, they can come out with an entirely new machine, and then we'll see.



    But, I'm really stuck on the idea of Woodcrest, at least for the high end towers.
  • Reply 70 of 175
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,174member
    WOODCREST_WOODCREST_WOODCREST
  • Reply 71 of 175
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Apple's lineup and processors:





    MacBook: Merom

    Macbook Pro: Merom



    MacMini: Merom

    iMac: Merom



    PowerMac replacement: Woodcrest

    Xserve: Woodcrest.



    Conroe is a good chip, but like its predecessor, the Pentium-D it really doesn't fit with Apple's lineup. The only way I think You'll see a Conroe based Mac is if Apple plugs the gaping hole in its lineup or lets someone do it for them.
  • Reply 72 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    Apple's lineup and processors:





    MacBook: Merom

    Macbook Pro: Merom



    MacMini: Merom

    iMac: Merom



    PowerMac replacement: Woodcrest

    Xserve: Woodcrest.



    Conroe is a good chip, but like its predecessor, the Pentium-D it really doesn't fit with Apple's lineup. The only way I think You'll see a Conroe based Mac is if Apple plugs the gaping hole in its lineup or lets someone do it for them.




    Unfortunately, now that I think of it, I can imagine Apple making the cheapest Powermac with a Conroe, and the cheapest Xserve too, though compared to equivalent competing products, they are anything but cheap. Apple is the only company I can think of that doesn't sell a server or workstation with a second processor socket that's empty, it's one populated socket or two populated sockets. Apple is butt-headed and condescending in that way. I think that is part of what prevents them from being taken seriously in the engineering and IT markets.
  • Reply 73 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Depends on the definition of 'crushing'...IE lost almost 10% market share to Firefox and Safari in the last year. To me, that's 'crushing'. IE still has about 85% of the market share but...let's face it, IE is going doooooooown.



    I don't believe that IE lost 10% last year. I haven't even seen reliable numbers that said that Firefox has 10% yet. Calling it a crushing is akin to declaring a project as finished before it has really started.
  • Reply 74 of 175
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    I don't believe that IE lost 10% last year. I haven't seen reliable numbers that said that Firefox has 10% yet. Calling it a crushing is akin to declaring a project as finished before it has really started.



    Firefox passes 10 percent market share



    That's global. In Europe it's more like 15%. Either way, when added with Safari and the now free Opera, that's a pretty significant loss in markets hare.
  • Reply 75 of 175
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    Unfortunately, now that I think of it, I can imagine Apple making the cheapest Powermac with a Conroe, and the cheapest Xserve too, though compared to equivalent competing products, they are anything but cheap. Apple is the only company I can think of that doesn't sell a server or workstation with a second processor socket that's empty, it's one populated socket or two populated sockets. Apple is butt-headed and condescending in that way. I think that is part of what prevents them from being taken seriously in the engineering and IT markets.



    I don't see the second empty socket as being a problem. One of the main reasons why Apple hasn't gotten into the server market in a bigger way, outside of their own base, is because companies say that there is no upgrade path. It isn't the low end anyone cares about. Apple's server solution is about the cheapest on the market anywhere.



    The complaints I read about among corporate customers in ComputerWorld, InfoWorld, and others, is that Apple has no 2 or 3 height, 4 cpu, and 8 cpu solutions. This is what they want to see,



    As long as Apple refuses to cater to that market, they will never gain the amount of marketshare they could.



    And, it can't be said that a two core chip will be the answer, because everyone will be supplying, not only two chip, two core solutions, but four chip, two core (per chip) solutions. And later, four core. Apple will still be behind.



    They also have to fix the problems with threads that cause their web servers to slow down unacceptably. The talk of Avi leaving, and Mach leaving with him is interesting. Personally, I hope it happens. Avi was one of the developers of Mach, with him out of the way, the path is clear. For all we know, the decision was already made to leave Mach, and Avi left to enable that to happen without embarrassment to either him, or Apple.
  • Reply 76 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Apple's server solution is about the cheapest on the market anywhere.



    By what measure? I priced out a four core 1U HP server with OS and equivalent other equipment for less than Apple's dual processor unit.
  • Reply 77 of 175
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    By what measure? I priced out a four core 1U HP server with OS and equivalent other equipment for less than Apple's dual processor unit.



    Exactly. I am putting together a 100+ cpu cluster for my computational needs, and Apple can't compete at all. Frankly, they don't even have a product that I would consider now. When the xServe first came out (even when it first switched to G5), it was one of the best deal both for performance and cost. Sadly for Apple, the world changed and they didn't.



    Anyhow, for my computational nodes, I am using dual, dual-core Opterons with 4GB RAM, GigE, and an 80GB hard drive for just at $2k per 1U node. This is with PCI-Express which is required for the infiniband cards (that price doesn't include the cards). Now, the computational nodes that Apple sells might have a bit more in features; however, those features are worthless when I've double the cpu's (even if there isn't a true linear increase in compute power--it is about 1.8x for a dual-core opteron over the 2x for ideal; however, the G5 is a poorer dual-core performer, right around 1.5x for my application).



    He is absolutely right about size. For the master node, I need 3U with a variety of cards (RAID, infiniband, etc.), and Apple does not provide that.



    So, I use Apple on the desktop, and AMD/Linux on the computational side. Play to the strength of each side.
  • Reply 78 of 175
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    By what measure? I priced out a four core 1U HP server with OS and equivalent other equipment for less than Apple's dual processor unit.



    Because you aren't doing what every company in the world does. you have to add the cost of the server software in as well. Once you account for that, things change dramatically.



    Apple charges $499 for a 5 seat license, I think it is. But they only charge $999 for a 10 and up seat license.



    So, if you have a need for a fairly small number of licenses, say 20, Apple's solution only has to include that $999 license fee. The cost of Linux from any of the major vendors, such as Red Hat, or IBM, costs more.



    Free Linux distro's don't count, as few companies go that route. The ones that do, have much higher costs, as they have to take on the entire support load themselves.



    Once you begin to talk about MS server licensing, you are in a totally different ballpark. Price it out for yourself. you'll be shocked at the difference.



    No one counts the hardware pricing alone. These aren't home PC's where you get the OS license for one machine at a time. Client licenses can be expensive.
  • Reply 79 of 175
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by atomicham

    Exactly. I am putting together a 100+ cpu cluster for my computational needs, and Apple can't compete at all. Frankly, they don't even have a product that I would consider now. When the xServe first came out (even when it first switched to G5), it was one of the best deal both for performance and cost. Sadly for Apple, the world changed and they didn't.



    Anyhow, for my computational nodes, I am using dual, dual-core Opterons with 4GB RAM, GigE, and an 80GB hard drive for just at $2k per 1U node. This is with PCI-Express which is required for the infiniband cards (that price doesn't include the cards). Now, the computational nodes that Apple sells might have a bit more in features; however, those features are worthless when I've double the cpu's (even if there isn't a true linear increase in compute power--it is about 1.8x for a dual-core opteron over the 2x for ideal; however, the G5 is a poorer dual-core performer, right around 1.5x for my application).



    He is absolutely right about size. For the master node, I need 3U with a variety of cards (RAID, infiniband, etc.), and Apple does not provide that.



    So, I use Apple on the desktop, and AMD/Linux on the computational side. Play to the strength of each side.




    It's hard to believe that you haven't taken notice of the license costs, as I mentioned.



    I also have to doubt what you are saying about some of the technical issues. While you agree that a 2 and 3 U solution isn't provided, as I said, thare are other "issues" that aren't. You don't seem to be aware of just what is available in terms of interconnectivity. Infiniband has been available since the Virginia Tech Supercomputing facility was built, using G5 servers with PCI X bus, AND InfiniBand boards from Mellanox. The solution is avaiable to anyone who wants it. This is very well known, and has been all over the scientific community. That you lack this knowledge is amazing! RAID cards and software is available as well, in SCSI, PATA, and SATA. I have these solutions. Apple's Xserve RAID is an inexpensive, powerful, and popular storage solution, as is it's Xsan software. Dual 2GB Fibre Channel boards and support is available.



    It's interesting to note that every one of the major installations of Apple servers has been made, not only from a performance perspective, but from a cost perspective.



    Every one of them has been made because Apple's solution was CHEAPER than the competition. So, somewhere, your costing is wrong.



    And, talking about the present, yes, the G5 solution is now, sadly, rapidly becoming obsolete. We all know that. So, that will swiftly be a meaningless qualification. Within a few months, those machines will be replaced, as we all know. As Woodcrest's will likely be performing better than the Opteron's, that question will no longer be an issue.



    The hardware bang for the buck will be back, and the Software license costs will retain their overwhelming advantage.



    The only real problems that remain are the lack of 2 and 3 U systems.
  • Reply 80 of 175
    atomichamatomicham Posts: 185member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    It's hard to believe that you haven't taken notice of the license costs, as I mentioned.



    Why should I take notice when the only systems I am concerned with are linux-based?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    I also have to doubt what you are saying about some of the technical issues. While you agree that a 2 and 3 U solution isn't provided, as I said, thare are other "issues" that aren't. You don't seem to be aware of just what is available in terms of interconnectivity. Infiniband has been available since the Virginia Tech Supercomputing facility was built, using G5 servers with PCI X bus, AND InfiniBand boards from Mellanox. The solution is avaiable to anyone who wants it. This is very well known, and has been all over the scientific community. That you lack this knowledge is amazing! RAID cards and software is available as well, in SCSI, PATA, and SATA. I have these solutions. Apple's Xserve RAID is an inexpensive, powerful, and popular storage solution, as is it's Xsan software. Dual 2GB Fibre Channel boards and support is available.



    What makes you believe that I lack the knowledge? Are you aware that while there is support for PCI-X, the vendors are pushing their products towards PCI-Express? Myrinet 10g is PCI-Express. The PCI-Express solution is the long-term trend. Even as CPUs become obsolete, I would like to keep my infrastructure. The infrastructure is a much higher outlay of cost than the actual computers, so I do not wish to purchase twice.



    Furthermore, the optimized network and MPI drivers for the interconnects are all written for Linux. Virginia Tech (who spent upwards of 50x what I will) developed their own drivers. I don't have that sort of time or capability. I have to rely on existing support to manage and update the cluster.



    Xserve RAID is a very nice solution. I never even introduced the topic. You can try to twist and alter the argument, but the computational power of Apple's Xserve solution is neither cost or power feasible any longer.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    It's interesting to note that every one of the major installations of Apple servers has been made, not only from a performance perspective, but from a cost perspective.



    Every one of them has been made because Apple's solution was CHEAPER than the competition. So, somewhere, your costing is wrong.




    Those are excellent systems. But, don't introduce successful systems of 1-2 years ago as current arguments because pricing and performance have changed.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    And, talking about the present, yes, the G5 solution is now, sadly, rapidly becoming obsolete. We all know that. So, that will swiftly be a meaningless qualification. Within a few months, those machines will be replaced, as we all know. As Woodcrest's will likely be performing better than the Opteron's, that question will no longer be an issue.



    The hardware bang for the buck will be back, and the Software license costs will retain their overwhelming advantage.



    The only real problems that remain are the lack of 2 and 3 U systems.




    Heh. We are only talking about the present. You jump on me because I don't take into account the price of systems sold two years ago, then agree that Apple's current solutions are practically obsolete. Thank you for taking up our time.



    I have to spend my budget in the next 2 months. Apple cannot compete in the current situation. I hope that changes this fall with Woodcrest, I love Apple products; however, the world has options, and the current options are superior. Licensing is a non-issue for those of us who are not using Windows.
Sign In or Register to comment.