Because these are workstations for serious professionals. Apple makes a serious workstation.
In that case a single Quad Core is more efficient then 2 Dual Cores. I gave it a few more minutes of thought and figure it's just because Apple designed it to work with 2 chips... I guess.
So you can have Two Dual-Core Intel Xeons, and Two Quad-Core Intel Xeons. Why the hell can't you have One Quad-Core?
Sebastian
That would be an interesting experiment. I know a lot of PC motherboards will accept either Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad like the E6700. Maybe you could drop one into an iMac. That would be cool. Of course they cost around $900 so it is kind of expensive an it probably wouldn't perform well even if it worked.
stop bitching about no blue ray, put in your own burner if you want. Really i dont care since i use a outside hard drive for backups and so far no games are on blue ray and i beileve that blue ray movies can not be played on computers with out a special chip. This may be wrong but still held when i last cheacked.
In that case a single Quad Core is more efficient then 2 Dual Cores. I gave it a few more minutes of thought and figure it's just because Apple designed it to work with 2 chips... I guess.
Sebastian
Define efficient, and for who? I think it's more efficient to be able to do more b/c I have all the apps I need running and I can use some while others are rendering in the background. More processors = get it done faster so I can more work done daily. .
Define efficient, and for who? I think it's more efficient to be able to do more b/c I have all the apps I need running and I can use some while others are rendering in the background. More processors = get it done faster so I can more work done daily. .
I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.
So if you had the option to just have a Quad core instead of 2 Duel Cores, you would still have as much processing power because there would still be 4 cores. As an added bonus, there would only be one chip, which makes it more energy efficient and it uses less heat then having 2 chips in the same case, powered by 2 different sockets.
That would be an interesting experiment. I know a lot of PC motherboards will accept either Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad like the E6700. Maybe you could drop one into an iMac. That would be cool. Of course they cost around $900 so it is kind of expensive an it probably wouldn't perform well even if it worked.
Merom uses a Socket 479 whereas the Kentsfield/Conroe/Allendale uses a Land Grid Array.
I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.
So if you had the option to just have a Quad core instead of 2 Duel Cores, you would still have as much processing power because there would still be 4 cores. As an added bonus, there would only be one chip, which makes it more energy efficient and it uses less heat then having 2 chips in the same case, powered by 2 different sockets.
Sebastian
Right now 2 dual cores are probably cheaper for APple (and you). reason being that Apple probably still has some, and #2 intel will cutting prices to move on to bigger, and better projects.
3-6 months? The iPod is well over 1 1/2 year, the MacPro enclosure is almost four (though it has gone through a significant redesign inside), the Macbook Pro enclosure is more than four, with some subtle changes, the iMac is almost a year and a half, if you count the iSight revision as new and so on.
The Xserves are even older, and I don't expect any radical aestethical departure in that area.
I'm just wondering what they are doing. They seem to be hoarding new designs for post leopard computers and accessories, from what we've been hearing.
I'm not at all dissatisfied with what we have, but I believe Apple has a pretty effective design team, so I just want to know how they work.
Hording? You aren't dissatisfied? Please, your post screams it, especially in how you present the idea. Your posts essentially read, "nothing here is impressive because they haven't changed the way the case looks!"
The overall look of the Mac Pro is NOT more than four years old. It isn't even four years old yet. And, that is only the brushed aluminum color and honeycomb looking grill aesthetic. The first tower to sport it was released in June of 2003. But, several exterior features were changed with the introduction of the MacPro in August of last year. Not to mention that, as you did acede, there have been several different modifications to the interior, not to mention a complete rewrite of its design in the MacPro.
As for the MacBook Pro, again if you limit form factor to simply color it hasn't been changed in just over 4 years as of this January, as the first PowerBook to sport the same aluminum finish was introduced in January 2003 on the first 17" model. It wasn't adopted on the full line until September of that year when there was finally a 15" Aluminum.
Mind you, since then there have been exterior port modification, the addition of the iSight, MagLock for the power cord and the transition to glossy screens.
This, of course, covers a period of time in which there was also an en masse switch to Intel chips, the redesign of the iPod Nano, the redesign of the iPod Shuffle, the introduction of a new form factor of the iMac, a slight remodel to the iMac form factor, a redesign of iBook to the MacBook, two upgrades to the OS, the introduction of the iPhone and the AppleTV.
But, yes, they're hording designs until after the release of Leopard.
(hehehehe.... at work... was trying to get the post made and missed my BAD mistake... thanks emig647)
Right now 2 dual cores are probably cheaper for APple (and you). reason being that Apple probably still has some, and #2 intel will cutting prices to move on to bigger, and better projects.
That's correct, if I was a customer for the Mac Pro. The only pointed it out because it's weird to have 2 Quad Core Chips and 2 Dual Core Chips as options, even though 2 Dual Cores equals one Quad, and they have an option for 2 Quads but not 1 Quad, not even as a BTO.
You'll find out how little people care about Apple offering a cheaper price in the Graphics department of this thread. My personal opinion is that if Apple is going to stay competitive, at the very least, they can start by offering a better value in the hardware and give their customers far more choice. Hell, I was shocked when Apple decided not to choose the XTX over the XT, that's just weird.
Here's a strange thing - Apple has at least got round to publicising the 8-core on its UK "Hot news" pages, even though they aren't available in the UK store.
If you follow the links from the news pages, it takes you through the Mac Pro page, link at the top "Buy One" goes to the UK "Business Store" (didn't know they had one), which then leads you to the Mac Pro - you guessed it - Quad Core!
Don't know who's more messed up, Apple for being so stupid, or me for noticing!
AFAIK all the clovertowns so far have had 1066MHz FSBs
- only the Woodcrests have had 1333MHz FSBs
Intel News Release, Nov. 14, 2006: Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor 5300 series. Four Intel Xeon processors are launching today at clock speeds ranging from 1.60GHz to 2.66GHz, with front side bus (FSB) speeds ranging from 1066MHz to 1333MHz.
X5355 - 2.66GHz - 1333 FSB
E5345 - 2.33GHz - 1333 FSB
E5320 - 1.86GHz - 1066 FSB
E5310 - 1.60GHz - 1066 FSB
Logically the new X5365 3.0GHz part has a 1333 FSB, like the other quad-core 53x5 Xeons.
I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.
It's not as simple as that. Two separate dual core is better than a single dual-dual in some cases because each socket has its own independent bus, offering a lot less opportunities for contention, four cores per FSB, or two cores per FSB. The difference isn't earth shattering, but for many uses, there is a difference.
Other makers allow you to spec out their workstations with only one chip though, so you could just buy one dual-dual core chip and leave the other socket unused, and you can populate the second socket at some other time. One problem with that is that the price of some competing workstations is such that you can get both sockets populated in the Mac Pro for the same price for similar spec chips, just fewer chip choices.
There's probably not much difference in power efficiency because the dies are mostly the same difference, a quad core Clovertown has two Woodcrests stitched together into the same package rather than one each in two separate packages.
Comments
Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
So you can have Two Dual-Core Intel Xeons, and Two Quad-Core Intel Xeons. Why the hell can't you have One Quad-Core?
Sebastian
Because these are workstations for serious professionals. Apple makes a serious workstation.
Because these are workstations for serious professionals. Apple makes a serious workstation.
In that case a single Quad Core is more efficient then 2 Dual Cores. I gave it a few more minutes of thought and figure it's just because Apple designed it to work with 2 chips... I guess.
Sebastian
Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
So you can have Two Dual-Core Intel Xeons, and Two Quad-Core Intel Xeons. Why the hell can't you have One Quad-Core?
Sebastian
That would be an interesting experiment. I know a lot of PC motherboards will accept either Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad like the E6700. Maybe you could drop one into an iMac. That would be cool. Of course they cost around $900 so it is kind of expensive an it probably wouldn't perform well even if it worked.
In that case a single Quad Core is more efficient then 2 Dual Cores. I gave it a few more minutes of thought and figure it's just because Apple designed it to work with 2 chips... I guess.
Sebastian
Define efficient, and for who? I think it's more efficient to be able to do more b/c I have all the apps I need running and I can use some while others are rendering in the background. More processors = get it done faster so I can more work done daily. .
Intel hasn't announced the Xeon 3.0 Ghz Quad Core yet.
- but apparently it takes 150W
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38724
Also, it's impressive that the FSB is running at 1333MHz
- i.e. they haven't had to drop it to 1066MHz when they went Quad Core.
Ummm, you do realize Intel is going to a 1600Mhz FSB later this year. Why would they lower the bus, just increase it later.
Define efficient, and for who? I think it's more efficient to be able to do more b/c I have all the apps I need running and I can use some while others are rendering in the background. More processors = get it done faster so I can more work done daily. .
I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.
So if you had the option to just have a Quad core instead of 2 Duel Cores, you would still have as much processing power because there would still be 4 cores. As an added bonus, there would only be one chip, which makes it more energy efficient and it uses less heat then having 2 chips in the same case, powered by 2 different sockets.
Sebastian
That would be an interesting experiment. I know a lot of PC motherboards will accept either Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad like the E6700. Maybe you could drop one into an iMac. That would be cool. Of course they cost around $900 so it is kind of expensive an it probably wouldn't perform well even if it worked.
Merom uses a Socket 479 whereas the Kentsfield/Conroe/Allendale uses a Land Grid Array.
Merom uses a Socket 479 whereas the Kentsfield/Conroe/Allendale uses a Land Grid Array.
It was a fun dream while it lasted. Thanks for the info.
m
I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.
So if you had the option to just have a Quad core instead of 2 Duel Cores, you would still have as much processing power because there would still be 4 cores. As an added bonus, there would only be one chip, which makes it more energy efficient and it uses less heat then having 2 chips in the same case, powered by 2 different sockets.
Sebastian
Right now 2 dual cores are probably cheaper for APple (and you). reason being that Apple probably still has some, and #2 intel will cutting prices to move on to bigger, and better projects.
3-6 months? The iPod is well over 1 1/2 year, the MacPro enclosure is almost four (though it has gone through a significant redesign inside), the Macbook Pro enclosure is more than four, with some subtle changes, the iMac is almost a year and a half, if you count the iSight revision as new and so on.
The Xserves are even older, and I don't expect any radical aestethical departure in that area.
I'm just wondering what they are doing. They seem to be hoarding new designs for post leopard computers and accessories, from what we've been hearing.
I'm not at all dissatisfied with what we have, but I believe Apple has a pretty effective design team, so I just want to know how they work.
Hording? You aren't dissatisfied? Please, your post screams it, especially in how you present the idea. Your posts essentially read, "nothing here is impressive because they haven't changed the way the case looks!"
The overall look of the Mac Pro is NOT more than four years old. It isn't even four years old yet. And, that is only the brushed aluminum color and honeycomb looking grill aesthetic. The first tower to sport it was released in June of 2003. But, several exterior features were changed with the introduction of the MacPro in August of last year. Not to mention that, as you did acede, there have been several different modifications to the interior, not to mention a complete rewrite of its design in the MacPro.
As for the MacBook Pro, again if you limit form factor to simply color it hasn't been changed in just over 4 years as of this January, as the first PowerBook to sport the same aluminum finish was introduced in January 2003 on the first 17" model. It wasn't adopted on the full line until September of that year when there was finally a 15" Aluminum.
Mind you, since then there have been exterior port modification, the addition of the iSight, MagLock for the power cord and the transition to glossy screens.
This, of course, covers a period of time in which there was also an en masse switch to Intel chips, the redesign of the iPod Nano, the redesign of the iPod Shuffle, the introduction of a new form factor of the iMac, a slight remodel to the iMac form factor, a redesign of iBook to the MacBook, two upgrades to the OS, the introduction of the iPhone and the AppleTV.
But, yes, they're hording designs until after the release of Leopard.
(hehehehe.... at work... was trying to get the post made and missed my BAD mistake... thanks emig647)
But, yes, they're hording designs until after the release of Panther.
Almost a flawless post...... leopard
Right now 2 dual cores are probably cheaper for APple (and you). reason being that Apple probably still has some, and #2 intel will cutting prices to move on to bigger, and better projects.
That's correct, if I was a customer for the Mac Pro. The only pointed it out because it's weird to have 2 Quad Core Chips and 2 Dual Core Chips as options, even though 2 Dual Cores equals one Quad, and they have an option for 2 Quads but not 1 Quad, not even as a BTO.
You'll find out how little people care about Apple offering a cheaper price in the Graphics department of this thread. My personal opinion is that if Apple is going to stay competitive, at the very least, they can start by offering a better value in the hardware and give their customers far more choice. Hell, I was shocked when Apple decided not to choose the XTX over the XT, that's just weird.
I'm still against the Mid Tower though.
Sebastian
Panther was before Jaguar, which was before Tiger wasn't it? That's some ancient OS. You know what. I'll bet Vista is on par with Panther.
Vista is on par with Cheetah.
Just add Quicksilver and Growl to your applications and that makes Mac OS X only another 10 years ahead of Vista.
Sebastian
Ummm, you do realize Intel is going to a 1600Mhz FSB later this year. Why would they lower the bus, just increase it later.
AFAIK all the clovertowns so far have had 1066MHz FSBs
- only the Woodcrests have had 1333MHz FSBs
If you follow the links from the news pages, it takes you through the Mac Pro page, link at the top "Buy One" goes to the UK "Business Store" (didn't know they had one), which then leads you to the Mac Pro - you guessed it - Quad Core!
Don't know who's more messed up, Apple for being so stupid, or me for noticing!
AFAIK all the clovertowns so far have had 1066MHz FSBs
- only the Woodcrests have had 1333MHz FSBs
Intel News Release, Nov. 14, 2006: Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor 5300 series. Four Intel Xeon processors are launching today at clock speeds ranging from 1.60GHz to 2.66GHz, with front side bus (FSB) speeds ranging from 1066MHz to 1333MHz.
X5355 - 2.66GHz - 1333 FSB
E5345 - 2.33GHz - 1333 FSB
E5320 - 1.86GHz - 1066 FSB
E5310 - 1.60GHz - 1066 FSB
Logically the new X5365 3.0GHz part has a 1333 FSB, like the other quad-core 53x5 Xeons.
Panther was before Jaguar, which was before Tiger wasn't it? That's some ancient OS. You know what. I'll bet Vista is on par with Panther.
Actually...
10.2 - Jaguar
10.3 - Panther
10.4 - Tiger
10.5 - Leopard
Panther was after Jaguar, easy mistake
I define efficient as having an equal number of cores, but fewer chips, and just as much processing power.
It's not as simple as that. Two separate dual core is better than a single dual-dual in some cases because each socket has its own independent bus, offering a lot less opportunities for contention, four cores per FSB, or two cores per FSB. The difference isn't earth shattering, but for many uses, there is a difference.
Other makers allow you to spec out their workstations with only one chip though, so you could just buy one dual-dual core chip and leave the other socket unused, and you can populate the second socket at some other time. One problem with that is that the price of some competing workstations is such that you can get both sockets populated in the Mac Pro for the same price for similar spec chips, just fewer chip choices.
There's probably not much difference in power efficiency because the dies are mostly the same difference, a quad core Clovertown has two Woodcrests stitched together into the same package rather than one each in two separate packages.