48 replies to this topic

[IMG News]

For those readers that may have missed the scoop, yesterday Apple quietly released the desktop we all knew was coming: an 8-core Mac Pro. Sporting two 3.0Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors, the 8-core build's hefty power comes with a price to match - $3,997.00 for the base model.

Some of the tech specs include:

• Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 series processors
  
• Intel Core microarchitecture Intel Xeon
  
• 8MB of L2 cache per processor (16MB total; each pair of cores shares 4MB)
  
• 128-bit SSE3 vector engine
  
• 64-bit data paths and registers
  
• 1.33GHz, 64-bit dual independent frontside buses

Apple also continues to offer the quad-core Mac Pro models with no price changes. Buyers can opt for two Dual-Core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors in 2, 2.66, or 3GHz flavors.

Return to Full Article - InsideMacGames News

[cosmo]

It's getting to be like razors. Instead of squeezing more and more blades onto a razor, now it's squeezing more and more CPUs into a computer.

[Ranger_Joe]

cosmo, on April 5th 2007, 02:29 PM, said:

It's getting to be like razors. Instead of squeezing more and more blades onto a razor, now it's squeezing more and more CPUs into a computer.

I'd like an 8 bladed razor.

[galganog]

ALL HAIL THE OCTO-CORE!!!

[Nicholas]

Now, if I had a £2000 free, I would buy one...

[Tesseract]

cosmo, on April 6th 2007, 04:29 AM, said:

It's getting to be like razors. Instead of squeezing more and more blades onto a razor, now it's squeezing more and more CPUs into a computer.

The first blade distracts the hair, while the second and third blades surround it and cut off its escape. The fourth blade grabs it and holds it down while the fifth, sixth and seventh blades each cut off a third of its length. The eighth blade cleans up the scene so there is no evidence that anything ever happened.



The difference, of course, is that the extra CPU cores can actually do something.

[Maestro]

Tesseract, on April 5th 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

The difference, of course, is that the extra CPU cores can actually do something.

It's too bad it will only help for Audio/Video/Photo applications. I don't see any real advantage for games

[nagromme]

A lot of apps and games can benefit from at least 2 processors. And more processors means the OS and background processors can run without taking away from the app you're using.

But the real benefit (aside from Folding@Home) of having a LOT of processors is with multitasking--running multiple apps at once with no slowdown.

A dual core machine can play WoW just fine maybe, but when you're running WoW, Quake 4, Prey, UT2004, Redline, the entire suite of Big Bang games, and Freecell 1942 all at once, the 8-core tower will really earn its keep.

[Lemon Lime]

like you will ever need 8 cores for the games currently on the market......

[Dark_Archon]

Lemon Lime, on April 5th 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

like you will ever need 8 cores for the games currently on the market......

256k of memory should be enough for any application.

In terms of games though, you are right. GPUs tend to be more of a bottleneck, but you don't buy a $4000 computer just to game. I chose to get a Mac Pro, because I needed to be able to run windows software (VMWare is great), and I wanted a computer that would last. My G5 iMac was fine other than the GeForce FX 5200. In the Mac Pro, people(I think at strangedogs) have been able to flash x1900xt graphics cards to work in Mac Pros in Windows and OS X. I can multitask much better with 4 processors than I can with 2, but I'm in dire need of more RAM... now if only I had money left over.

[converted2truth]

nagromme, on April 5th 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

A dual core machine can play WoW just fine maybe, but when you're running WoW, Quake 4, Prey, UT2004, Redline, the entire suite of Big Bang games, and Freecell 1942 all at once, the 8-core tower will really earn its keep.

The 8-core Mac pro would have to utilize some form of SLI in order for this to be achievable on a graphical level.  That said, i understand what you are trying to say

[bookman]

So can us Mac folks brag about having the fastest computer in the world  

[archermitch]

perfect! I was just planning a Mac within the month! I was going to get a Mac Mini with Leopard. But now this? hhmm... Any suggestions?

[Frost]

That is all.

[nagromme]

archermitch, on April 6th 2007, 01:33 AM, said:

perfect! I was just planning a Mac within the month! I was going to get a Mac Mini with Leopard. But now this? hhmm... Any suggestions?

I say flip a coin. A Mac Mini or an octo tower, either one pretty much meets the same needs

[archermitch]

oh geez. I just realized the octo was $4,000. Not 400... Mini it is!

[yo-mike]

All these cores for super demanding tasks, such as scientific research - Scientists would be the best candidates for such a powerful computer like this MacOc.
I don't see many users being able to utilize such a machine's potential, other than computer wiz/scientists.
I think dual processors would have been best for a lot of the rest of us, but technology manufacturers seem to be heading the way toward low- watt, less power ->consumption<-

[Smoke_Tetsu]

Psst.. a little birdy says that games are going to come out that take advantage of 4 or more cores... like from valve and remedy. They say it's at 4 where you really start seeing interesting stuff being able to be done with (new) games. Seriously... they've been talking about it quite a bit these past months.

And btw... where's the upgraded GPUs for this? (Yeah I know all the potential excuses for that.. like these not being for gamers.. pfft)..

[yo-mike]

Smoke_Tetsu, on April 6th 2007, 02:18 AM, said:

Psst.. a little birdy says that games are going to come out that take advantage of 4 or more cores... like from valve and remedy. They say it's at 4 where you really start seeing interesting stuff being able to be done with (new) games. Seriously... they've been talking about it quite a bit these past months.

And btw... where's the upgraded GPUs for this? (Yeah I know all the potential excuses for that.. like these not being for gamers.. pfft)..

That's interesting.
But, couldn't the Nvidia Quadro card handle just about anything (Games) coming out that would utilize 8 or 4 cores?
O, I guess we still have yet to see a 1GB graphics card for Macs!

Edited by yo-mike, 06 April 2007 - 01:46 AM.

[Smoke_Tetsu]

yo-mike, on April 6th 2007, 01:43 AM, said:

That's interesting.
But, couldn't the Nvidia Quadro card handle just about anything (Games) coming out that would utilize 8 or 4 cores?
O, I guess we still have yet to see a 1GB graphics card for Macs!

No because A.. it's not meant for games and B it's not the top of the line it uses the same chip as a 7800GTX in other words previous gen DX9 level. It's also put into a mode more optimized for things like 3D Graphics programs (example: Maya) than games. Sure it may handle a lot of games out there. But if I where putting money down on such a system especially for how much I'd spend on this I'd want nothing but the best. You aren't getting the state of the art in graphics on the new Mac Pro and they aren't giving any options for it either and I personally don't like that.

I would like to see GeForce 8xxx series cards in there.