two 16 lane PCIe slots, one 8 lane, and one 4 lane works out to 44 lanes, plus two for Firewire and one for Bluetooth comes to 47 lanes. That's a lot, especially for a 2-socket board
Or what if they use 16x slots timed to 8x? that'd be only about 40 lanes (including dedicated FW/BT lanes), which is more doable. All slots are 16x sized, only timing varies. You could have a 16x lane, 2 8x lanes, and a 4x lane, in this order: 16-8a-8b-4
When you do SLI, the x16 speed slot shuts off half its lanes, so you have SLI'd 8-lane (like most early SLI solutions did). When you're not in SLI mode, the 16x lane works normally, allowing for a Quadro or 7950GX2 to use the full bandwidth easily.
They could even drop to the current 36 lanes if they take 8b down to a 4x solution. Having 8b allows for SLI and Fibre Channel or eSATA on one machine, which is nice, but may not be totally necessary for them to support.
Back to the big boys: How many readers of this Forum would really buy a Quad Woodcrest, or would be reasonably happy with a nice Conroe Extreme Edition dual Mac Pro? Nice as in >=2GB of RAM and >=250GB disk space. It would have a faster clock rate to brag about and we might still have enough money for gasoline.
What it comes down to is what rabbit Apple pulls out of their hat (or asses, if you will), and when they do it. The expense of a quad without much software that supports it is pretty much moot. Quicktime maxes out at 2P, parts of iLife (I know iDVD for sure) don't even try to use more than 1P even if it needs it. I would hope that Apple doesn't wait for Kentsfield to release their next line.
I was considering replacing the old 2P workstation that I have for a work computer, but in reality, there's nothing wrong with it. It would have been nice to get a quad, one that runs OS X too, have parallels run two operating systems, but in reality, I don't need OS X for work.
What it comes down to is what rabbit Apple pulls out of their hat (or asses, if you will), and when they do it. The expense of a quad without much software that supports it is pretty much moot. Quicktime maxes out at 2P, parts of iLife (I know iDVD for sure) don't even try to use more than 1P even if it needs it.
Don't be surprised to see that change quickly. Apple has an all-dualcore line (minus the low-end Mini), and so is going to jump on multithreading and multi-processor. Vista is supposed to struggle with more than 2-4 core multiprocessing. 4-8 core could become standard by 2009 (Vista's successor's release date), and Apple will have performance advantage if Macs take more advantage of multi-core than PCs do.
Don't be surprised to see that change quickly. Apple has an all-dualcore line (minus the low-end Mini), and so is going to jump on multithreading and multi-processor. Vista is supposed to struggle with more than 2-4 core multiprocessing. 4-8 core could become standard by 2009 (Vista's successor's release date), and Apple will have performance advantage if Macs take more advantage of multi-core than PCs do.
Likey some time next year will be able to buy a 2 cpu 8 core amd system.
Likey some time next year will be able to buy a 2 cpu 8 core amd system.
Are you saying "we'll" as in "we will" be, or "will" be? Because I'm not sure what it is your saying.
Either way - By the end of this year 4 core processors will be available from intel, and Apple should upgrade their high-end workstation with at least one single socket, and dual socket configuration sometime after that point IMO. Probably a one more thing in Jan @ MWSF, but it will be big bank. Although Woodcrest configurations might get lowered slightly at that time as well.
Are you saying "we'll" as in "we will" be, or "will" be? Because I'm not sure what it is your saying.
Either way - By the end of this year 4 core processors will be available from intel, and Apple should upgrade their high-end workstation with at least one single socket, and dual socket configuration sometime after that point IMO. Probably a one more thing in Jan @ MWSF, but it will be big bank. Although Woodcrest configurations might get lowered slightly at that time as well.
Now: Quad-2.00/Quad-2.33/Quad-3.00
January: Quad-2.33/Quad-3.00/Octo-something (whatever fits the price)
What it comes down to is what rabbit Apple pulls out of their hat (or asses, if you will), and when they do it. The expense of a quad without much software that supports it is pretty much moot. Quicktime maxes out at 2P, parts of iLife (I know iDVD for sure) don't even try to use more than 1P even if it needs it. I would hope that Apple doesn't wait for Kentsfield to release their next line.
In reality though, that doesn't matter so much. Rarely do you just run iDVD or just Quicktime. No, you're more likely to set something off encoding and then get on with other work so even badly threaded programs running on only one or two of your processors leaves you with other processors left over to do other work.
I think that will change quite rapidly though. Apple have a long history of dual CPU machines so they're in a better position than most software wise. 4 and 8 cores in computers in the next year or so will quickly get developers thinking of better threaded software.
If only they'd bought BeOS instead of NeXT though. <sigh>
In reality though, that doesn't matter so much. Rarely do you just run iDVD or just Quicktime. No, you're more likely to set something off encoding and then get on with other work so even badly threaded programs running on only one or two of your processors leaves you with other processors left over to do other work.
I can usually do plenty of work with a computer even if the CPU meter is pegged. I just resent the idea that I have two processors and one is simply idle when the process is taking too long encoding MPEG2 DVD with a single thread. I think it is odd, especially when the software maker has a complete line of dual processor computers but no single piece of software, save some pro apps, that takes advantage of it, even when it is relatively easy pickings.
I can usually do plenty of work with a computer even if the CPU meter is pegged. I just resent the idea that I have two processors and one is simply idle when the process is taking too long encoding MPEG2 DVD with a single thread. I think it is odd, especially when the software maker has a complete line of dual processor computers but no single piece of software, save some pro apps, that takes advantage of it, even when it is relatively easy pickings.
There's certainly some glaring gaps in Apple's multi-cpu support and Quicktime is one of them. Since it's at the heart of so many media apps, you'd think they'd spend some time getting it running well multi-cpu. The update from Quicktime 6 to 7 was a big rewrite. Maybe they'll finish the rewrite in Quicktime 8 and then many of the apps that don't perform so well will get instant updates.
That's one of the beautiful things with using Apple's frameworks and also one of it's curses.
The low-end Mac Mini isn't a Celeron D. The low-end iMac isn't a Pentium 4. The low-end Macbook Pro isn't a Pentium M...I doubt they'd make that significant of a change at the lowend [Conroe in lowest model Mac Pro]. Especially since it would reduce the bulk they can buy motherboards in since they'd no longer be unified.
Yeah, design considerations/ only-one-motherboard wise, that would move more towards an all-Woodcrest Mac Pro line.
I am buying the 3GHz woodcrest with an Nvidia x2 card most likely because I am starting to think that they wont come through with dual 16X PCI -E lanes, but I'll take it, and hope that the next revision has them.
You're still *hoping vaguely* that SLI/Crossfire will show up and you're *hoping somewhat* that they'll offer the nVidia 7950gx2 What if both don't happen?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
...When you do SLI, the x16 speed slot shuts off half its lanes, so you have SLI'd 8-lane (like most early SLI solutions did). When you're not in SLI mode, the 16x lane works normally, allowing for a Quadro or 7950GX2 to use the full bandwidth easily...
Newer PC motherboards eg. from Asus have x16 x16 SLI lanes (marketed as 32X SLI or something). But yeah, they can do this because that's 32 PCIExpress lanes, there's only 2 16x PCIEx slots for GPU, the rest is PCI. Since Apple would like to have 4x and 8x PCIex slots, so yes, you have a point on total number of lanes. I'm not going to get too bitchy but I am just going to reiterate generally IMO Apple is NOT going to have SLI/Crossfire.
two 16 lane PCIe slots, one 8 lane, and one 4 lane works out to 44 lanes, plus two for Firewire and one for Bluetooth comes to 47 lanes. That's a lot, especially for a 2-socket board
Or what if they use 16x slots timed to 8x? that'd be only about 40 lanes (including dedicated FW/BT lanes), which is more doable. All slots are 16x sized, only timing varies. You could have a 16x lane, 2 8x lanes, and a 4x lane, in this order: 16-8a-8b-4
When you do SLI, the x16 speed slot shuts off half its lanes, so you have SLI'd 8-lane (like most early SLI solutions did). When you're not in SLI mode, the 16x lane works normally, allowing for a Quadro or 7950GX2 to use the full bandwidth easily.
They could even drop to the current 36 lanes if they take 8b down to a 4x solution. Having 8b allows for SLI and Fibre Channel or eSATA on one machine, which is nice, but may not be totally necessary for them to support.
Not true. The AMD Pro boards never did that. Only the intel ones were not true 16X Dual lanes. Nvidia's Nforce4 boards do not do that either. They are true dual full speed 16x PCI-E lanes.
You're still *hoping vaguely* that SLI/Crossfire will show up and you're *hoping somewhat* that they'll offer the nVidia 7950gx2 What if both don't happen?
I'm not hoping for crossfire. ATI sucks, and their so called crossfire idea doesn't even compete with SLI.
I have faith. If Apple does not provide (I think they will) I'll probably attempt to HW mod a PC version.
"Nvidia's Nforce4 boards do not do that either. They are true dual full speed 16x PCI-E lanes."
My Asus A8N-SLI [normal, not "Premium" or "Deluxe"] has 2 PCIExpress slots. Nforce4 chipset. AFAIK when running SLI it is only overall PCIExpress x16 communicating with the 2 GPUs.
Dual x16 requires something like a Asus A8N32-SLI :
Yeah, design considerations/ only-one-motherboard wise, that would move more towards an all-Woodcrest Mac Pro line.
I forget how many Pro towers Apple has typically sold, but if they are making several tens of thousands of them in each price bracket, there is a chance that it is more economical to have two distinct boards.
I forget how many Pro towers Apple has typically sold, but if they are making several tens of thousands of them in each price bracket, there is a chance that it is more economical to have two distinct boards.
Whether it's economical or not doesn't seem to stop them. See the iMac transition from G5 to Intel - how short lived was that? Or any of the PowerMacs from the G3 up, different models have had different motherboards.
By the way, I'm saddened to see the gamers have taken over the thread again. WTF cares if you can run dual gamer cards in a Pro mac?
Whether it's economical or not doesn't seem to stop them. See the iMac transition from G5 to Intel - how short lived was that? Or any of the PowerMacs from the G3 up, different models have had different motherboards.
By the way, I'm saddened to see the gamers have taken over the thread again. WTF cares if you can run dual gamer cards in a Pro mac?
The volume of iMac sales is probably so high that they might have made the money back by changing some components. More iMacs are probably sold in a quarter than the Pro towers in a year.
I don't think it makes sense to run games on the Pro towers (IMO, better to buy a Windows computer for that), but there might be some 3D app use.
Comments
Or what if they use 16x slots timed to 8x? that'd be only about 40 lanes (including dedicated FW/BT lanes), which is more doable. All slots are 16x sized, only timing varies. You could have a 16x lane, 2 8x lanes, and a 4x lane, in this order: 16-8a-8b-4
When you do SLI, the x16 speed slot shuts off half its lanes, so you have SLI'd 8-lane (like most early SLI solutions did). When you're not in SLI mode, the 16x lane works normally, allowing for a Quadro or 7950GX2 to use the full bandwidth easily.
They could even drop to the current 36 lanes if they take 8b down to a 4x solution. Having 8b allows for SLI and Fibre Channel or eSATA on one machine, which is nice, but may not be totally necessary for them to support.
Originally posted by BradMacPro
Back to the big boys: How many readers of this Forum would really buy a Quad Woodcrest, or would be reasonably happy with a nice Conroe Extreme Edition dual Mac Pro? Nice as in >=2GB of RAM and >=250GB disk space. It would have a faster clock rate to brag about and we might still have enough money for gasoline.
What it comes down to is what rabbit Apple pulls out of their hat (or asses, if you will), and when they do it. The expense of a quad without much software that supports it is pretty much moot. Quicktime maxes out at 2P, parts of iLife (I know iDVD for sure) don't even try to use more than 1P even if it needs it. I would hope that Apple doesn't wait for Kentsfield to release their next line.
I was considering replacing the old 2P workstation that I have for a work computer, but in reality, there's nothing wrong with it. It would have been nice to get a quad, one that runs OS X too, have parallels run two operating systems, but in reality, I don't need OS X for work.
Originally posted by JeffDM
What it comes down to is what rabbit Apple pulls out of their hat (or asses, if you will), and when they do it. The expense of a quad without much software that supports it is pretty much moot. Quicktime maxes out at 2P, parts of iLife (I know iDVD for sure) don't even try to use more than 1P even if it needs it.
Don't be surprised to see that change quickly. Apple has an all-dualcore line (minus the low-end Mini), and so is going to jump on multithreading and multi-processor. Vista is supposed to struggle with more than 2-4 core multiprocessing. 4-8 core could become standard by 2009 (Vista's successor's release date), and Apple will have performance advantage if Macs take more advantage of multi-core than PCs do.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Don't be surprised to see that change quickly. Apple has an all-dualcore line (minus the low-end Mini), and so is going to jump on multithreading and multi-processor. Vista is supposed to struggle with more than 2-4 core multiprocessing. 4-8 core could become standard by 2009 (Vista's successor's release date), and Apple will have performance advantage if Macs take more advantage of multi-core than PCs do.
Likey some time next year will be able to buy a 2 cpu 8 core amd system.
Originally posted by Joe_the_dragon
Likey some time next year will be able to buy a 2 cpu 8 core amd system.
There will be 8 core Intel systems as well.
Originally posted by Joe_the_dragon
Likey some time next year will be able to buy a 2 cpu 8 core amd system.
Are you saying "we'll" as in "we will" be, or "will" be? Because I'm not sure what it is your saying.
Either way - By the end of this year 4 core processors will be available from intel, and Apple should upgrade their high-end workstation with at least one single socket, and dual socket configuration sometime after that point IMO. Probably a one more thing in Jan @ MWSF, but it will be big bank. Although Woodcrest configurations might get lowered slightly at that time as well.
Originally posted by onlooker
Are you saying "we'll" as in "we will" be, or "will" be? Because I'm not sure what it is your saying.
Either way - By the end of this year 4 core processors will be available from intel, and Apple should upgrade their high-end workstation with at least one single socket, and dual socket configuration sometime after that point IMO. Probably a one more thing in Jan @ MWSF, but it will be big bank. Although Woodcrest configurations might get lowered slightly at that time as well.
Now: Quad-2.00/Quad-2.33/Quad-3.00
January: Quad-2.33/Quad-3.00/Octo-something (whatever fits the price)
Originally posted by JeffDM
What it comes down to is what rabbit Apple pulls out of their hat (or asses, if you will), and when they do it. The expense of a quad without much software that supports it is pretty much moot. Quicktime maxes out at 2P, parts of iLife (I know iDVD for sure) don't even try to use more than 1P even if it needs it. I would hope that Apple doesn't wait for Kentsfield to release their next line.
In reality though, that doesn't matter so much. Rarely do you just run iDVD or just Quicktime. No, you're more likely to set something off encoding and then get on with other work so even badly threaded programs running on only one or two of your processors leaves you with other processors left over to do other work.
I think that will change quite rapidly though. Apple have a long history of dual CPU machines so they're in a better position than most software wise. 4 and 8 cores in computers in the next year or so will quickly get developers thinking of better threaded software.
If only they'd bought BeOS instead of NeXT though. <sigh>
Originally posted by aegisdesign
In reality though, that doesn't matter so much. Rarely do you just run iDVD or just Quicktime. No, you're more likely to set something off encoding and then get on with other work so even badly threaded programs running on only one or two of your processors leaves you with other processors left over to do other work.
I can usually do plenty of work with a computer even if the CPU meter is pegged. I just resent the idea that I have two processors and one is simply idle when the process is taking too long encoding MPEG2 DVD with a single thread. I think it is odd, especially when the software maker has a complete line of dual processor computers but no single piece of software, save some pro apps, that takes advantage of it, even when it is relatively easy pickings.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I can usually do plenty of work with a computer even if the CPU meter is pegged. I just resent the idea that I have two processors and one is simply idle when the process is taking too long encoding MPEG2 DVD with a single thread. I think it is odd, especially when the software maker has a complete line of dual processor computers but no single piece of software, save some pro apps, that takes advantage of it, even when it is relatively easy pickings.
There's certainly some glaring gaps in Apple's multi-cpu support and Quicktime is one of them. Since it's at the heart of so many media apps, you'd think they'd spend some time getting it running well multi-cpu. The update from Quicktime 6 to 7 was a big rewrite. Maybe they'll finish the rewrite in Quicktime 8 and then many of the apps that don't perform so well will get instant updates.
That's one of the beautiful things with using Apple's frameworks and also one of it's curses.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If only they'd bought BeOS instead of NeXT though. <sigh>
Boy, do I remember the arguments we used to have in the usergroup about that one!
The low-end Mac Mini isn't a Celeron D. The low-end iMac isn't a Pentium 4. The low-end Macbook Pro isn't a Pentium M...I doubt they'd make that significant of a change at the lowend [Conroe in lowest model Mac Pro]. Especially since it would reduce the bulk they can buy motherboards in since they'd no longer be unified.
Yeah, design considerations/ only-one-motherboard wise, that would move more towards an all-Woodcrest Mac Pro line.
I am buying the 3GHz woodcrest with an Nvidia x2 card most likely because I am starting to think that they wont come through with dual 16X PCI -E lanes, but I'll take it, and hope that the next revision has them.
You're still *hoping vaguely* that SLI/Crossfire will show up and you're *hoping somewhat* that they'll offer the nVidia 7950gx2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
...When you do SLI, the x16 speed slot shuts off half its lanes, so you have SLI'd 8-lane (like most early SLI solutions did). When you're not in SLI mode, the 16x lane works normally, allowing for a Quadro or 7950GX2 to use the full bandwidth easily...
Newer PC motherboards eg. from Asus have x16 x16 SLI lanes (marketed as 32X SLI or something). But yeah, they can do this because that's 32 PCIExpress lanes, there's only 2 16x PCIEx slots for GPU, the rest is PCI. Since Apple would like to have 4x and 8x PCIex slots, so yes, you have a point on total number of lanes. I'm not going to get too bitchy but I am just going to reiterate generally IMO Apple is NOT going to have SLI/Crossfire.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
two 16 lane PCIe slots, one 8 lane, and one 4 lane works out to 44 lanes, plus two for Firewire and one for Bluetooth comes to 47 lanes. That's a lot, especially for a 2-socket board
Or what if they use 16x slots timed to 8x? that'd be only about 40 lanes (including dedicated FW/BT lanes), which is more doable. All slots are 16x sized, only timing varies. You could have a 16x lane, 2 8x lanes, and a 4x lane, in this order: 16-8a-8b-4
When you do SLI, the x16 speed slot shuts off half its lanes, so you have SLI'd 8-lane (like most early SLI solutions did). When you're not in SLI mode, the 16x lane works normally, allowing for a Quadro or 7950GX2 to use the full bandwidth easily.
They could even drop to the current 36 lanes if they take 8b down to a 4x solution. Having 8b allows for SLI and Fibre Channel or eSATA on one machine, which is nice, but may not be totally necessary for them to support.
Not true. The AMD Pro boards never did that. Only the intel ones were not true 16X Dual lanes. Nvidia's Nforce4 boards do not do that either. They are true dual full speed 16x PCI-E lanes.
Originally posted by sunilraman
You're still *hoping vaguely* that SLI/Crossfire will show up and you're *hoping somewhat* that they'll offer the nVidia 7950gx2
I'm not hoping for crossfire. ATI sucks, and their so called crossfire idea doesn't even compete with SLI.
I have faith. If Apple does not provide (I think they will) I'll probably attempt to HW mod a PC version.
"Nvidia's Nforce4 boards do not do that either. They are true dual full speed 16x PCI-E lanes."
My Asus A8N-SLI [normal, not "Premium" or "Deluxe"] has 2 PCIExpress slots. Nforce4 chipset. AFAIK when running SLI it is only overall PCIExpress x16 communicating with the 2 GPUs.
Dual x16 requires something like a Asus A8N32-SLI :
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2589&p=2
These Dual x16 for Intel and AMD setups came after the initial SLI mobos made it to the market.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Yeah, design considerations/ only-one-motherboard wise, that would move more towards an all-Woodcrest Mac Pro line.
I forget how many Pro towers Apple has typically sold, but if they are making several tens of thousands of them in each price bracket, there is a chance that it is more economical to have two distinct boards.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I forget how many Pro towers Apple has typically sold, but if they are making several tens of thousands of them in each price bracket, there is a chance that it is more economical to have two distinct boards.
Whether it's economical or not doesn't seem to stop them. See the iMac transition from G5 to Intel - how short lived was that? Or any of the PowerMacs from the G3 up, different models have had different motherboards.
By the way, I'm saddened to see the gamers have taken over the thread again. WTF cares if you can run dual gamer cards in a Pro mac?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Whether it's economical or not doesn't seem to stop them. See the iMac transition from G5 to Intel - how short lived was that? Or any of the PowerMacs from the G3 up, different models have had different motherboards.
By the way, I'm saddened to see the gamers have taken over the thread again. WTF cares if you can run dual gamer cards in a Pro mac?
The volume of iMac sales is probably so high that they might have made the money back by changing some components. More iMacs are probably sold in a quarter than the Pro towers in a year.
I don't think it makes sense to run games on the Pro towers (IMO, better to buy a Windows computer for that), but there might be some 3D app use.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I don't think it makes sense to run games on the Pro towers (IMO, better to buy a Windows computer for that), but there might be some 3D app use.
IMO better to buy a console. For the price of one of the cards alone you get a whole system that you can use from the comfort of your sofa on your TV.