This isn't really news - Intel announced this at IDF about a month ago. They said that quad cores are as dense as they plan to go in the near future because it'll take software systems a while to catch up. Most applications and OSs aren't designed for 4-way or 8-way parallelization, and its also hard to tell what other bottlenecks will show up in a system that has a CPU that powerful. There's going to be a huge learning curve for the industry here. Kudos to Intel though for making it happen, and to Mr Jobs for making sure that we're a part of it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quad-Core Intels (Kentsfield) in Q1 2007?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Am I the only one confused by all the different Intel chips out there (not just the ones Apple uses)? There's the Pentium D, M, Core Solo & Duo, Cloverton, Xeon and a bunch of others I think. I really wish Intel would really consolidate its CPU line. Maybe one like Core Solo for consumer and laptop computers, one like Core Duo or the quad-core one for workstations and Xeon for servers. I know people like options but most people (or at least I) don't really know what the differences are and which option is right for them. Plus, I hope Intel makes its lineup all 64-bit and possibly multi-core so that they can crank down the clock speed so they would decrease the heat and electrical noise produced. I was just thinking about how Altivec, SSE and graphics cards are something like 256-bit or something. What would the CPU be like if all of it ran at 256-bit (or whatever the width is of Altivec/SSE) so that all the bits can go to all parts of the processor at the same time instead of having to be buffered and then pushed out. Also, from what I've heard, the data path between the CPU and everything else is simplex, meaning that the information can only go in or out, not both at the same time. What would it be like if it were duplex? That would scream, but before all of you say it, I know. Both the duplex & the 256-bit thing would need a lot of more wiring on the motherboard making it gigantic, but the computer would be a hell of a lot faster.
andrew050703 said:
Get a divorce.
Oh, and Quad-Core Intels (Kentsfield) in Q1 2007?... HECK YEAH!!!
Kingsly said:Yes! This will further accent the awesome power of the, dare I say it, "MacPro Octo"
2x Intel Core Quad running at 4ghz each core
500GB (upgradable to 1TB) HDD connected via internal Fibre Channel
4x ATI X2800 GPU's (each capible of processing 8 trillion triangles per second) with 1GB VRAM each
PCIi (PCI insane) up to 8gbps data transfer rates
4ghz FSB
1GB L2 cache per core
8GB 1ghz DDR3 SDRAM (PC2-9000) expandable to 16GB
$4999
Purchase with the all new Integrated sensing Apple Cinema display (30" or 42") and save $999
*Warning* MacPro Octo requires 240VAC 14kW. Please contact your local electricity provider for more information about installing a dedicated power line. If you wish, you can purchase a Tabletop Nuclear Fusion device for an additional $499
Out of all of that, the PCI "insane" is what made me laugh. haha
Kentsfield is two dual-core chips on a MCM (Multi Chip Module).
It'd be like IBM trying to claim their POWER5 was 8-core, when they put 4 dual-core dies (+cache, interconnects) on the same package.
This doesn't mean that the solution is technically worse - indeed it has significant cost and yield advantages. Only that it is terminologically poor.
AMD will have true quad-core chips out in the same timeframe.
In terms of AMD, the cost of a 2 quad-core processors + 2 socket motherboard/system is very likely to be higher than the cost of a 4 socket motherboard/system + 4 dual-core processors in the beginning. Computing density is the main reason you'd pay extra. Of course in 65nm AMD's quad-core is going to be around the size of their 90nm dual-core, so it won't be *that* rare. OTOH dual-core (1MB cache/core) on 65nm for AMD will be around 110mm^2, which is mass market size.
It'd be like IBM trying to claim their POWER5 was 8-core, when they put 4 dual-core dies (+cache, interconnects) on the same package.
This doesn't mean that the solution is technically worse - indeed it has significant cost and yield advantages. Only that it is terminologically poor.
AMD will have true quad-core chips out in the same timeframe.
In terms of AMD, the cost of a 2 quad-core processors + 2 socket motherboard/system is very likely to be higher than the cost of a 4 socket motherboard/system + 4 dual-core processors in the beginning. Computing density is the main reason you'd pay extra. Of course in 65nm AMD's quad-core is going to be around the size of their 90nm dual-core, so it won't be *that* rare. OTOH dual-core (1MB cache/core) on 65nm for AMD will be around 110mm^2, which is mass market size.
Oct Core Mac Pros Early 2007
This is very old news. Was reported during the Intel Developer's conference early last month.
Apple will want to put two Kentsfield processors in the top of the Mac Pro line - of this I am 100% certain. I'll limp along with my Quad PPC until then.
This is very old news. Was reported during the Intel Developer's conference early last month.
Apple will want to put two Kentsfield processors in the top of the Mac Pro line - of this I am 100% certain. I'll limp along with my Quad PPC until then.
What is Cloverton?
It is the true quad core successor to Kentsfield?
OK I give up. What is Cloverton? This is the first time I have seen that processor's name.~Shard~ said:You mean dual quad-cores? That would be sweet... Although they may just focus on Cloverton instead of Kentsfield when considering a situation like that.
It is the true quad core successor to Kentsfield?
Rotflmao
ROTFLMAO. For the record, the PPC Quad is radically quieter than any of the dual core models. And its 1000 Watt power supply is easily supported and continually powered from its battery with only a 1500 VA 850 watt Belkin UPS.Kingsly said:Yes! This will further accent the awesome power of the, dare I say it, "MacPro Octo"
2x Intel Core Quad running at 4ghz each core
500GB (upgradable to 1TB) HDD connected via internal Fibre Channel
4x ATI X2800 GPU's (each capible of processing 8 trillion triangles per second) with 1GB VRAM each
PCIi (PCI insane) up to 8gbps data transfer rates
4ghz FSB
1GB L2 cache per core
8GB 1ghz DDR3 SDRAM (PC2-9000) expandable to 16GB
$4999
Purchase with the all new Integrated sensing Apple Cinema display (30" or 42") and save $999
*Warning* MacPro Octo requires 240VAC 14kW. Please contact your local electricity provider for more information about installing a dedicated power line. If you wish, you can purchase a Tabletop Nuclear Fusion device for an additional $499
Video Work Is Painfully Slow With Fastest Macs NOW MaxVamp
This is a fundamental consumer electronics application - nothing sophisticated at all. Primitive need in fact. Something EVERYONE NEEDS. For you to sit there and say none of us need 32 processors running 10 GHz each shows just how little time you spend doing stuff that needs power simply because you don't want to take the enormous amount of time it currently takes so you pretend it isn't needed.
WRONG. BULLETIN - Earth to MaxVamp. The current "State-of-the-art" Quad PPC Mac is CRAP for any kind of Transcoding video work. Converting native HD video recordings takes HOURS of time to achieve a reduced and usable mp4 file. You are completely out of touch with how much power is NEEDED RIGHT NOW that we still have to wait many more YEARS to get.maxvamp said:
This is a fundamental consumer electronics application - nothing sophisticated at all. Primitive need in fact. Something EVERYONE NEEDS. For you to sit there and say none of us need 32 processors running 10 GHz each shows just how little time you spend doing stuff that needs power simply because you don't want to take the enormous amount of time it currently takes so you pretend it isn't needed.
These kinds of rumors are the reason I still have my G4 500 sawtooth. Wait for the dual proc. G4. Wait for the G5. Wait for the quad G5. Wait for Conroe. Now Kentsfield. It's diabolical.
Someone tell me the Kentsfield will be a lot more expensive than the Conroe.
Someone tell me the Kentsfield will be a lot more expensive than the Conroe.
Multimedia said:OK I give up. What is Cloverton? This is the first time I have seen that processor's name.
It is the true quad core successor to Kentsfield?
Yep, pretty much. Cloverton is a true quad-core processor, and isnt expected to be on the market until late 2006if not 2007.
True Quad Core Cloverton late 2007 early 2008
Multimedia said:
I think you meant late 2007—if not 2008. Right? That would still be within the Leopard era. Do you have any more info on what Cloverton's architechture might include ~Shard? Has Intel named a Mobile Quad Core Processor as well?~Shard~ said:Yep, pretty much. Cloverton is a true quad-core processor, and isn’t expected to be on the market until late 2006—if not 2007.
Multimedia said:I think you meant late 2007if not 2008. Right? That would still be within the Leopard era. Do you have any more info on what Cloverton's architechture might include ~Shard? Has Intel named a Mobile Quad Core Processor as well?
Nope, I think Cloverton, which consists of 2 Woodcrest dies, is actually out before Woodcrest, and is scheduled for later this year. It's similar to Conroe in that respect - Conroe is based off Merom, however Merom is coming out after Conroe.
Here's some more info for you...
8 Core Mac Pro Shipping By Spring 2007
I hope to live to see the day when these "simple" tasks that currently take about 10 hours will take no more than 5 minutes.
I feel certain that an 8 core Mac will be shipping a year from now as the top of the line flagship Mac. As the owner of a Quad, I can tell you that for certain consumer level basic video transcoding work it is way too slow and 8 cores will probably still be too slow. I am not kidding.macgeek2005 said:
I hope to live to see the day when these "simple" tasks that currently take about 10 hours will take no more than 5 minutes.
What Happened To Kentsfield??
Thank you very much ~Shard~. So is what I have been calling Kentsfield Cloverton? I don't see Kentsfield mentioned anywhere in those pages. And yet I saw a photograph of a Kentsfield four core prototype posted during the IDC.~Shard~ said:Nope, I think Cloverton, which consists of 2 Woodcrest dies, is actually out before Woodcrest, and is scheduled for later this year. It's similar to Conroe in that respect - Conroe is based off Merom, however Merom is coming out after Conroe.
Here's some more info for you...
Multimedia said:I feel certain that an 8 core Mac will be shipping a year from now as the top of the line flagship Mac. As the owner of a Quad, I can tell you that for certain consumer level basic video transcoding work it is way too slow and 8 cores will probably still be too slow. I am not kidding.
I hope to live to see the day when these "simple" tasks that currently take about 10 hours will take no more than 5 minutes.
I am out of the business now, but when I used to do SD video editing on my DP1.25ghz G4 tower, doing major renders or encoding big mp2 streams would take several hours. I would usually set them up to work overnight and check back in the morning.
I never really successfully employed editing using an OfflineRT workflow, but that would seem to make even more sense w/HD content--get your basic editing done using a scratch codec, then set up a massive rerender at full HD res before final color correction and encoding.
It will be very interesting to find out if Apple will optimize the new UB Final Cut Studio for massive parallel-CPU usage. That would make a "V8" system more appealing. Imagine three or four connected to a Gigabit switch--there's a render farm for ya!
The Intel portion isn't a rumor.
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/index.htm
Search for Kentsfield. You'll see this:
"Intel will also deliver a quad-core (4 full execution cores) processor to the high-end desktop based upon this new microarchitecture, codenamed Kentsfield. Kentsfield is targeted for introduction in the first quarter of 2007."
Kentsfield exists, so the only rumor is whether or not Apple will be the first out the gate.
Joseph Elwell.
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/index.htm
Search for Kentsfield. You'll see this:
"Intel will also deliver a quad-core (4 full execution cores) processor to the high-end desktop based upon this new microarchitecture, codenamed Kentsfield. Kentsfield is targeted for introduction in the first quarter of 2007."
Kentsfield exists, so the only rumor is whether or not Apple will be the first out the gate.
Joseph Elwell.
Hmm...
Powermac Ultra
4x Quad-Core 64 bit CPU's with Hyper Threading- 16 Physical Cores, 32 Virtual (each core at 2.5Ghz, total of 40Ghz)
4-64GB of RAM
4x 500GB SATA 20k rpm hard drives
Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Burners
4x ATI Radeon video cards, 2GB of video RAM each, 1Ghz processor each. 1Ghz physics processor each, 2 DVI-D ports each, 1 HDMI each, 1x S-Video each
12x USB
16x Firewire 400
4x Firewire 800
Quad Gigabit Ethernet
Dual Infinite Channel
Dual Fibre Channel
Optical in/out
Bluetooth
Integraded 802.11a/b/g/n/i, doubles as a base station
6x PCI Express
4x TV tuners, 2 HD, 2 analog
Frontrow
PnP Compatibility with Xserve/Xserve RAID
...and an iPod dock.
..What do you think?
Powermac Ultra
4x Quad-Core 64 bit CPU's with Hyper Threading- 16 Physical Cores, 32 Virtual (each core at 2.5Ghz, total of 40Ghz)
4-64GB of RAM
4x 500GB SATA 20k rpm hard drives
Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Burners
4x ATI Radeon video cards, 2GB of video RAM each, 1Ghz processor each. 1Ghz physics processor each, 2 DVI-D ports each, 1 HDMI each, 1x S-Video each
12x USB
16x Firewire 400
4x Firewire 800
Quad Gigabit Ethernet
Dual Infinite Channel
Dual Fibre Channel
Optical in/out
Bluetooth
Integraded 802.11a/b/g/n/i, doubles as a base station
6x PCI Express
4x TV tuners, 2 HD, 2 analog
Frontrow
PnP Compatibility with Xserve/Xserve RAID
...and an iPod dock.
..What do you think?
Too Much To Drink?
I think you better take a chill pill and come back down to earth Mammoth. This is an impossible prospect. Everybody knows Analog TV is going to be discontinued in two and three quarter years.Mammoth said: