An 8-core future

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Couldn't help but read between the lines of the quote:



Quote:

The 8-core Mac Pro gives pro software developers a platform to prepare new versions of their applications for the future, when 8-core technology is more prevalent on the desktop," an Apple spokesperson told Macworld.



Almost as if they are downplaying this current crop of new Mac Pros. They are just for developers???! I'm betting Penryn & Leopard will usher in the true age of 8-core computing. WWDC? Penryn is slated for the 2nd half. Will we see all Mac Pros with 8 Cores and perhaps even an 8 core iMac?



http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04...core/index.php

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    I don't think we'll see all computers running Quad core or Octo core but Penryn will certainly bring the heat back down. The 3Ghz Clovertown is probably dissipating over 120 watts of energy. We need 45nm parts to bring that back down to under 100 watts per chip or Apple will not be able to shrink the case of the Mac Pros.



    Remember...Penryn is just a die shrink for Woodcrest/Conroe. The next batch of fireworks jumps off with Nehalem with it's larger L2 caches and other core changes to bring the Magic.
  • Reply 2 of 13
    The biological sciences computing facilities at my university are nearly 100% Mac. A new IT manager is PC oriented. The latest suggestion is to shift to PC server-thin client computer labs. I realise there were problems with this configuration in the old days, but these aren't the old days any longer. It seems that a computer with 8 cores ought to have surplus capacity adequate to handle multiple users. For average use, cores 3-8 would probably get very little use. Is there an Apple solution in the server-thin client arena? I am not familiar enough with the technology to know how current hardware and server software might be configured to make this work.
  • Reply 3 of 13
    isomorphicisomorphic Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bcpebert View Post


    Is there an Apple solution in the server-thin client arena?



    A Mac Pro or Xserve running Server and Apple Remote Desktop, with Mac Minis as clients? (Or even really cheap old PCs running Linux as clients.)
  • Reply 4 of 13
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Remember...Penryn is just a die shrink for Woodcrest/Conroe.



    Not quite. Penryn is the die shrink for "mobile" processors and is going to have more L2 cache and will also introduce SSE4.



    The Woodcrest die shrink is called Harpertown, and the Conroe die-shrink is called Yorkfield. Again, these die-shrinks will also have more L2 cache and SSE4.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bcpebert View Post


    The biological sciences computing facilities at my university are nearly 100% Mac. A new IT manager is PC oriented. The latest suggestion is to shift to PC server-thin client computer labs. I realise there were problems with this configuration in the old days, but these aren't the old days any longer. It seems that a computer with 8 cores ought to have surplus capacity adequate to handle multiple users. For average use, cores 3-8 would probably get very little use. Is there an Apple solution in the server-thin client arena? I am not familiar enough with the technology to know how current hardware and server software might be configured to make this work.



    Netboot. This allows an OS X server to have images for desktops located centrally. Thus you simply point the client computer at a particular Netboot image and voila you have an image that can follow you around like a roaming profile.



    Don't let that Microsoft drone replace your Macs. Biotech is a field dominated by Unix and Microsoft ain't Unix.



    Check out



    http://www.apple.com/science/macosx.html



    http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/n...rkinstall.html




    Apple focuses on Biotech and I'd hate to see you guy rip out a system that works and allows for minimal adminstration for a Windows network that will be wrought

    with issues and security problems.
  • Reply 6 of 13
    hmurchison,



    Thanks for the links. After doing the reading, I see that netboot allows multiple computers to boot off of a central machine. Am I correct to assume that the clients are using the CPU of the central machine from which they have booted, or are they just using the central machine's hard drive?



    Thanks.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    shadowshadow Posts: 373member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bcpebert View Post


    hmurchison,



    Thanks for the links. After doing the reading, I see that netboot allows multiple computers to boot off of a central machine. Am I correct to assume that the clients are using the CPU of the central machine from which they have booted, or are they just using the central machine's hard drive?



    Thanks.



    They are just using the central machine's hard drive, they could have no local HD at all. You may have specific applications which use client-server architecture (the real job done on server, the client only visualizes the results). This is not tied to NetBoot.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shadow View Post


    They are just using the central machine's hard drive, they could have no local HD at all. You may have specific applications which use client-server architecture (the real job done on server, the client only visualizes the results). This is not tied to NetBoot.



    Correct. It sounds like the new PC guy is trying to reign in the computers because of security reasons. PC admins tend to be that way because they've been burned before.



    If he wants centralized control of the Macs then he should be looking at Netboot. Your Macs still utilize all their local processing power of course.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,458member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bcpebert View Post


    A new IT manager is PC oriented. The latest suggestion is to shift to PC server-thin client computer labs.



    I used a thin-client (under Windows) for about a month last year, and wow... did that suck! And we didn't even have to share the server PC, we had 1 remote server per thin client. It would have been worse if we'd all been on the same server. 8 cores or not, the server still shares the same drives, memory, and network connection.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,458member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by murk View Post


    Couldn't help but read between the lines of the quote:



    Almost as if they are downplaying this current crop of new Mac Pros. They are just for developers???! I'm betting Penryn & Leopard will usher in the true age of 8-core computing. WWDC? Penryn is slated for the 2nd half. Will we see all Mac Pros with 8 Cores and perhaps even an 8 core iMac?[/URL]





    These first 8 core machines are expensive, hot, power hungry, and not fully optimized (the quad core chips are really just pairs of dual core chips in one package). They are primarily of interest to users who absolutely must have the greatest possible compute power in one box and are willing to pay for it... and to software developers so they can get a jump on creating software for >4 core machines before they become commonplace. They will become commonplace. First the MacPros will get the next generation quad core chips, then eventually 8-core chips will arrive and will spread beyond the MacPros to the other parts of Apple's Mac lineup (and, of course, all the other PC vendors too). Naturally everyone will ask "but do you really need an 8-core chip?" and since the software developers will have had time to create software on their 8-core MacPros the answer will be "yes, because then you can run ______". This is the way things work in the computer biz.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    imiloaimiloa Posts: 187member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Programmer View Post


    the answer will be "yes, because then you can run ______".



    Agreed. Moreover, for media pros, especially 3D & video, the answer will be "yes, because then you can render in half the time."
  • Reply 12 of 13
    pippinpippin Posts: 91member
    A 16-core Nehalem Mac Pro sometime in 2008/9 would probably be pretty darn good at chewing through 4k video footage. Well, as long as software developers really get the point by then.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    While it is often frustrating to spend hard earned dollars in a computer that might be obsolete

    by the time your credit card has been approved to purchase the said machine. With an eight core computer it seems the machines will only get faster and better as time goes on. I am a 3D and video artist who can use as much power as there is to spare and I can't wait for my macpro to get here as I ordered the 8CORE macpro.
Sign In or Register to comment.