[Buckaroo]

What do you call an 8 processor Mac Pro?

Now that might be real kick ass.

Coming in November.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092601034.html




ntel Plans Quad-Core Chip in Late 2006
By RACHEL KONRAD
The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; 6:52 PM


SAN FRANCISCO -- Intel Corp. plans to begin shipping microprocessors that have four computing engines on a single chip _ products that analysts say will help it win back market share from rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

The first chip, the Intel Core 2 Extreme quad-core processor, will be available in November. Intel says it will deliver a 70 percent performance improvement over Intel's current chips, which have one or two computing cores. The new chip is aimed at gamers, programmers and other people with heavy-duty computing needs.



For general consumers, Intel will ship a quad-core chip starting in the first quarter of 2007. For businesses, Intel will begin shipping four-core server chips later this year. A low-energy, quad chip for servers will be launched early next year, the company said Tuesday.

Offering high performance while maintaining energy efficiency is the name of the game in chip industry, CEO Paul Otellini said at the Intel Developer Forum.

"The industry is going through the most profound shift in decades, moving to an era where performance and energy efficiency are critical in all market segments and all aspects of computing," he said. "The solution begins with the transistor and extends to the chip and platform levels."

Otellini said the Santa Clara-based company's chips would deliver a 300 percent improvement in performance per watt over the next four years.

The new products give Intel _ the world's largest chip maker _ the opportunity to reverse sinking profits and regain market share stolen by AMD. Earlier this month, Intel announced it would cut 10 percent of its staff, or 10,500 jobs positions, to save $3 billion per year by 2008.

Analysts have criticized Intel for reacting too slowly after AMD's 2003 launch of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips for servers and desktop PCs.

AMD will introduce a particularly efficient and fast quad-core chip for high-performance servers in mid-2007, said spokesman John Taylor.

"Our strategy is consistent _ it's a customer-focused strategy that makes the transition as easy and benefit-rich for the customer as possible," Taylor said.

But it's unclear whether AMD's offering will make up for Intel's early lead, said IDC analyst Bob O'Donnell.

"Intel moved up this announcement specifically as an offensive blow against AMD, and it gives Intel a good six- to nine-month lead," O'Donnell said. "They're both taking this battle seriously. There's no question AMD will react _ it's just a matter of when."

Shares of Intel gained 55 cents _ nearly 3 percent _ to close at $19.96 in Tuesday trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Shares of AMD lost 78 cents _ nearly 3 percent _ to close at $25.99 on the Nasdaq.

[DrBoar]

Intel is a very big boat, steering away from Pentium 4 took a long time. But Intel also has very large R&D as well as production resources. Being stuck for ages with a CPU made for DSP (G4) will not happen again

[Simon]

The 4-core CPU Intel will announce in November is likely the "Core 2 Extreme Quadro" QX6700, a 2.66 GHz CPU with 2x4MB L2 cache running on a 1067 MHz FSB. It's basically two Conroes on one MCM.

The problem with this CPU is, that like Conroe it requires a socket 775 and chipset 975X or P965 (although the latter requires slight modifications to one module) and that is something Apple doesn't do. Currently, there is no Mac that will take this CPU: It won't fit the mini and iMac's socket M, it won't go with the MB and MBP's 945 chipset, and it won't fit the MP's socket LGA771.

Now, of course Apple could introduce a new desktop Mac using this CPU. However, it will be an expensive CPU (likely > $1000) and Apple would face considerable trouble marketing such a system next to the 4-core MP. If they introduce a new desktop system I'd much rather expect Conroe (E6600, E6700, or maybe the "Extreme" variant X6800).

OTOH there is a good possibility Apple could switch part of its MP line to quad core CPU. Either as a less expensive low-end single-CPU machine or as a high-end dual-CPU 8-core system. Clovertown (basically two Woodcrests on one MCM) is expected to by the end of this year and will use the same socket LGA771 as the MP is using now. A Clovertown sample has already successfully been used in a MP recently.

[Chuckit]

I thought Clovertown was what this thread is about. Which one is going to be the "Core 2 Extreme Quadro" (yeesh!)?

[Simon]

There is some confusion because Intel has obviously chosen to release Kentsfield (the 4-core version of Conroe) as a Core 2 (Extreme) Quadro and as Xeon 32xx series. Whatever they call it, it will require a Socket 775. Unless Apple introduces a new desktop Mac we won't see this CPU in Macs anytime soon. Clovertown OTOH is the quad-core CPU they're making for the LGA771 socket (the "Xeon" socket). This is what I'd expect to see in the MP.

[mduell]

BTW it's Core 2 Extreme and Core 2 Quad for the higher-end and lower-end consumer quads; no Extreme Quad and no Quadro.

[awcopus]

"... lower-end consumer quads..."

Mark, this phrase made me feel nostalgic.

15 years ago, I bought a 20MHz IIsi with 16MB of RAM, an external 100MB HD, and an Applep 13" color CRT. Enabled me to get design jobs, lay out college magazines. This was a mid-level machine (I coveted the IIci, which ran at over 30MHz, but didn't have the money). I think I paid something like $3400 (just about all of my Summer's earnings) for this setup. Wow.

[spice003]

whats the point of 4 cores when OS does not use all of them, but adobe prmier uses them so its all good. i just wish xp or osx would use all of them at the same time or have of the time at least for desktops ofcourse.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by spice003

whats the point of 4 cores when OS does not use all of them, but adobe prmier uses them so its all good. i just wish xp or osx would use all of them at the same time or have of the time at least for desktops ofcourse.

Expect major improvements in multiple processor/core support with OS 10.5 Leopard next spring.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by spice003

whats the point of 4 cores when OS does not use all of them, but adobe prmier uses them so its all good. i just wish xp or osx would use all of them at the same time or have of the time at least for desktops ofcourse.

Uh, the OS has to support them for applications to use them.. If premier is using 4 cores, so is the OS. Now, improving the threading of certain *tasks* within the OS is a worthy goal, although sometimes difficult or impossible.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by spice003

whats the point of 4 cores when OS does not use all of them, but adobe prmier uses them so its all good. i just wish xp or osx would use all of them at the same time or have of the time at least for desktops ofcourse.

As Catfish_Man already mentioned, OS X supports all four cores. And recent tests with Clovertown also show that even the current Tiger supports an 8-core system right out of the box.

The real issue is if the CPU-heavy tasks you perform are well threaded. One thread will only run on one core at a time. If you want n cores to be used concurrently you have to have at least n threads. The key to performance advantages with these CPUs is therefore good threading of CPU-heavy apps. There are apps that are very good at this and others that (currently) suck - the Finder is often quoted here although it's not a very good example.

But as we move away from single-core systems (right now, that is) developers will pay more attention to threading and you will benefit from that. Just like developers quickly noticed the benefits of vector processing units and tweaked their codes to make use of em, they will try to multithread their apps as much as they can. It's only going to get better.

[Chuckit]

The real advantage of multiple cores is that while the computer is thrashing away at some long, complex problem, you can command-tab over and play World of Warcraft in the meantime with no performance hit.

[awcopus]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The real advantage of multiple cores is that while the computer is thrashing away at some long, complex problem, you can command-tab over and play World of Warcraft in the meantime with no performance hit.

Of course, if software has been optimized to take advantage of all cores, then you will take a performance hit in WoW, or, at the very least, it will take longer for your work to get done because you're using processors for your gaming that would otherwise be used for "thrashing away...".

[DeathMan]

it would be nice to have a core or two at the ready, sort of a standby subsystem, so you can flip over to a game when you get a chance. Unfortunately my biggest sources of lag are I/O related, and I haven't heard much on that front. Especially on notebooks.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by DeathMan

it would be nice to have a core or two at the ready, sort of a standby subsystem, so you can flip over to a game when you get a chance. Unfortunately my biggest sources of lag are I/O related, and I haven't heard much on that front. Especially on notebooks.

I/O bandwidth or transactions?
Robson provides a good boost to the latter.