Jump to content


Apple Releases 8-Core Mac Pro


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 IMG News

IMG News

    Pimpbot 4000

  • IMG Writers
  • 8622 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:28 PM

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


#2 cosmo

cosmo

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:29 PM

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. ;)

#3 Ranger_Joe

Ranger_Joe

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Steam Name:rangerjoe79
  • Location:Ontario
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:35 PM

View Postcosmo, 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.

#4 galganog

galganog

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:36 PM

ALL HAIL THE OCTO-CORE!!!

#5 Nicholas

Nicholas

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Location:Chichester, England

Posted 05 April 2007 - 12:45 PM

Now, if I had a 2000 free, I would buy one...
My web site & Blog - Good for what ails you...

#6 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 April 2007 - 01:03 PM

View Postcosmo, 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. :)

#7 Maestro

Maestro

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Steam Name:kgmoome
  • Location:Boston

Posted 05 April 2007 - 02:46 PM

View PostTesseract, 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 :(
Tortillas are sleeping bags for ground beef.

#8 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 03:59 PM

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.

#9 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 05 April 2007 - 04:45 PM

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

#10 Dark_Archon

Dark_Archon

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 05 April 2007 - 06:46 PM

View PostLemon 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.
Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 7 GB RAM SONY DW-D150A SuperDrive

#11 converted2truth

converted2truth

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:Mountain West

Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:13 PM

View Postnagromme, 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 :)
Mac Pro/2.66/2GB RAM/X1900/1.5TB & 250GB X partition/250GB XP partition/Dell 24" LCD
MBP CD2.0/2GB ram/100GB HD (20GB XP partition)/ATI X1600m

#12 bookman

bookman

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1580 posts

Posted 05 April 2007 - 09:52 PM

So can us Mac folks brag about having the fastest computer in the world  :D
Work: MacBook - 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM - X3100 graphics.
Home: Mini - 2.0 Ghz Core2Duo - 2 GB RAM - GeForce 9400 graphics.

#13 archermitch

archermitch

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 05 April 2007 - 11:33 PM

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?
Mac Tip of the Day is a podcast, blog, archive, e-mail subscription, etc. of for clever mac tip every day!
Also check out Mac Tip of the Day for the Iphone

Click Here and join Gamefly!

Current Comp:
Intel Mac Mini OS 10.4.10
1.66 GHz Intel Core Duo
2 GB DDR2 SDRAM

Correct me if I'm wrong. It happens often.

#14 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6094 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 April 2007 - 11:54 PM

:sabber:

That is all.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#15 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:00 AM

View Postarchermitch, 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 :unsure:

#16 archermitch

archermitch

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:14 AM

oh geez. I just realized the octo was $4,000. Not 400... Mini it is!
Mac Tip of the Day is a podcast, blog, archive, e-mail subscription, etc. of for clever mac tip every day!
Also check out Mac Tip of the Day for the Iphone

Click Here and join Gamefly!

Current Comp:
Intel Mac Mini OS 10.4.10
1.66 GHz Intel Core Duo
2 GB DDR2 SDRAM

Correct me if I'm wrong. It happens often.

#17 yo-mike

yo-mike

    Livin' in 2007

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:30 AM

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<-

AMD Phenom II X4, Win 7 64

Kubuntu Rocks Better


#18 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 06 April 2007 - 01:18 AM

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)..
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#19 yo-mike

yo-mike

    Livin' in 2007

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 01:43 AM

View PostSmoke_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.

AMD Phenom II X4, Win 7 64

Kubuntu Rocks Better


#20 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 06 April 2007 - 03:04 AM

View Postyo-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.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7