[onlyone-jc]

See: [Link]

The Apple UK store is also currently down.

This could either be that Apple indeed leaked it by accident and is in the process of removing it.

Or, the store is being updated with new 8-Core Mac Pros! Which I doubt, since all the stores would be down internationally.

onlyone-jc.

[QuadG5Man]

maybe a Tuesday announcement? 8 cores, drool........

[imitchellg5]

It's really just a matter of time anyway. It's not like computer developement will suddenly stop.

[mkerr64]

seems to be a false alarm
The UK store seems to be up now

we shall see tomorrow

[reader50]

UK stores will be offering 8-cores soon.

Web-professional job offering available in the UK now.

[Nivag]

lol

[Todd Madson]

E.T. from Tellus put those chips into his MacPro and he's already got an 8-core
unit so we know they work in the machines, it's a no brainer.

[onlyone-jc]

Originally Posted by Todd Madson 

E.T. from Tellus put those chips into his MacPro and he's already got an 8-core
unit so we know they work in the machines, it's a no brainer.

That's with the old quad-core chips, though. Intel are about to release a new, more energy efficient chip. They're quite likely to perform better, and quite likely to be the chips Apple will choose for the Mac Pro.

onlyone-jc.

[Aron Peterson]

At this rate next year there will be a 16 core Mac Pro. It's not that hard to come up with a four socket mobo.

[onlyone-jc]

I know, yeah! Processing power is going to be unbelievable over the next few years. A single quad-core processor will probably be the standard for consumer desktop computers next year, not to mention notebook computers.

onlyone-jc.

[Big Mac]

Geez, 8 cores standard already? That gives even this old PPC zealot some pause.

[papadopolis]

start saving your pennies....

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Geez, 8 cores standard already? That gives even this old PPC zealot some pause.

PPC is long dead. Time to move on (forward)! [/thread longevity]

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Geez, 8 cores standard already? That gives even this old PPC zealot some pause.

We've both gotta buy Quad G5s before we can justify buying an Intel Mac.

[~bash $]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the core myth reminiscent of the megahertz myth, in the sense that more cores doesn't automatically mean better performance. All the same with 64-bit memory addressing - doesn't really help you if you're not addressing ridiculous amounts of memory.

And 8 cores don't really mean much at all if they're still running at 2.0 GHz and you're only using one of em. Software still needs to be written to take advantage of them - this is my understanding - is it incorrect?

For my own stuff, I hear that certain functions in the new version of MATLAB actually include multi-processor support, which I'm looking forward to. But between my Mac Pro and my Macbook C2D (both running @ 2.0 GHz per core), I see very little difference at all in terms of processor intensive tasks ....

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by ~bash $ 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the core myth reminiscent of the megahertz myth, in the sense that more cores doesn't automatically mean better performance. All the same with 64-bit memory addressing - doesn't really help you if you're not addressing ridiculous amounts of memory.

And 8 cores don't really mean much at all if they're still running at 2.0 GHz and you're only using one of em. Software still needs to be written to take advantage of them - this is my understanding - is it incorrect?

For my own stuff, I hear that certain functions in the new version of MATLAB actually include multi-processor support, which I'm looking forward to. But between my Mac Pro and my Macbook C2D (both running @ 2.0 GHz per core), I see very little difference at all in terms of processor intensive tasks ....

More or less correct, yes.

While software specially coded to take advantage of multiple cores will perform better, the MacOS is pretty good at distributing threads across all available processors. Much better than Windows is (at least NT and XP; not sure how good Vista is at thread scheduling).

Also, many Mac applications are multi-threaded - iWork, iTunes, iDVD, Garageband, all the Omni apps, Osirix, Toast, Popcorn and Aperture are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

However, depending on what you do, you are correct in that 8 cores probably wont give that much of a benefit over 4.

[CIA]

Yeah, that's very true. If you're buying a 8 core MacPro to surf the web then you have too much money to burn. But, for some of us this is great news. Anyone who works with "Pro" Apps will be very happy with more cores. FCP, Photoshop, etc.

Another side of this is 8 core MacPro's mean 4 Core iMac's and laptops are one step closer for everyone else, and thats always a good thing. The Mac side has always been more open to programming for multi-core/multi-processor since they have been readily available over here for so long. Yeah, you could've bought a multi-processor PC 5 years ago, but who did? We switched to Multi-processors because we were losing the Mhz race and needed more oomph. Now those years of programming multi-threaded apps is paying off.

[shadowduck]

Originally Posted by Cadaver 

More or less correct, yes.

While software specially coded to take advantage of multiple cores will perform better, the MacOS is pretty good at distributing threads across all available processors. Much better than Windows is (at least NT and XP; not sure how good Vista is at thread scheduling).

Also, many Mac applications are multi-threaded - iWork, iTunes, iDVD, Garageband, all the Omni apps, Osirix, Toast, Popcorn and Aperture are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

However, depending on what you do, you are correct in that 8 cores probably wont give that much of a benefit over 4.

You are correct, and actually having eight cores can slow performance down in some cases. There are some benchmarks on the PC side where 8 cores were slower than 4 and a dual core machine was still the fastest. Now of course, Windows (even Vista) does not really perform too hotly at using all available cores, so OS X will probably do better.

[Monde]

Keep those cores coming! When the next intel rev in this configuration comes out, it's definitely something I'll loosen the purse strings up for. I wonder what they'll put in that 24 inch iMac?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by shadowduck 

You are correct, and actually having eight cores can slow performance down in some cases. There are some benchmarks on the PC side where 8 cores were slower than 4 and a dual core machine was still the fastest.

I have also seen benchmarks where the 8-core system has been slower than the quad-core system, but in the comparisons I've seen that's always because the 8-core system is clocked lower than the quad-core system.

For example, the fastest Woodcrest you can buy runs at 3GHz so Apple can offer a 3GHz quad-core system. The fastest Clovertown money can buy runs at 2.66 GHz so if you run a single threaded app that saturates one core, the quad-core system will beat the 8-core system purely due to the faster clock. So my question is, have you seen benchmarks where equally clocked quad-core systems run faster than 8-core systems?

[utw-Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I have also seen benchmarks where the 8-core system has been slower than the quad-core system, but in the comparisons I've seen that's always because the 8-core system is clocked lower than the quad-core system.

For example, the fastest Woodcrest you can buy runs at 3GHz so Apple can offer a 3GHz quad-core system. The fastest Clovertown money can buy runs at 2.66 GHz so if you run a single threaded app that saturates one core, the quad-core system will beat the 8-core system purely due to the faster clock. So my question is, have you seen benchmarks where equally clocked quad-core systems run faster than 8-core systems?

I was just about to say the same ... A friend of mine was so frustrated when he got his 8 core system ... He did not realize that all his software runs only on one core ..

[TiDual]

Well, it's pretty impossible to use only one core on OS X. Open the Activity monitor some day, to see how many apps are running in the background. While most don't use much CPU, some do (like the program that indexes your drive for spotlight). Further, if you use multiple apps, each can run on it's own core ... heck even for surfing I often have Safari, Firefox and Camino or Omniweb running.

So yes, there might be scenarios when only one major app is running, where a single or dual core is superior, but for more realistic/average use, more cores is good. Of course, the gain in going from 4 to 8, probably isn't as much as going from 2 to 4, or from 1 to 2, but major apps will start to be more multi-threaded soon, now that multi-core machines are the norm.

I've owned almost every Mac made over the past 7 years, and my quads (G5 and now Xeon) are simply fantastic machines, no matter what a few obscure benchmarks might say!

[utw-Mephisto]

In my example he used PCs and not Macs .. should have said that really ...

[Simon]

Obviously there are many processes running at the same time under OS X and so you never just run a single thread. But, how many of those little processes saturate a core? Most likely not even all of them together. The question is if your heavy-duty apps are well multithreaded or if you can run many high load processes at the same time.

There are professionals that have several applications producing high load running at the same time. Obviously they would profit from multiple cores even if their apps were all single threaded.

Certainly more cores can be beneficial. But the real issue to keep in mind is that more cores do not necessarily mean you run faster. A home user running Safari will not benefit from 8 vs. 4 cores no matter how many little background tasks OS X spawns. However, a user who's running a PS filter, wants to run HandBrake and play a game all at the same time, will likely notice the improvement.

IOW, while both higher clock and more cores are beneficial in general, depending on your type of work, you could feel a substantial improvement from one and hardly any difference with the other.

[zaghahzag]

yeah, people have said everything right so far, i'd like to add just one thing.. for most of us the jump from one to two cores is HUGE because it means that when the CPU is slammed, the machine is still entirely useable as if nothing had happened.

Now, with 4 or 8 cores, you need to be doing 4 or 8 100% CPU utilizing procs (or an app that can use the multiple cores, like photoshop or FCP) before you notice a slowdown. How often does that happen for most of us? Not very often.

With that said, my dual core notebook has been a godsend for me as i often run scientific calculations on it that use a cpu 100% for days on end. This would render my old single proc mac almost unusable.

[nerd]

Yea, so when eyetv is exporting an hour long video and I want to try to use Aperture I would notice a difference from 4 to 8 cores? On my dual G5 everything is almost painful (still usable though) when eyetv is exporting since it's saturating both cpus while exporting.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by nerd 

Yea, so when eyetv is exporting an hour long video and I want to try to use Aperture I would notice a difference from 4 to 8 cores? On my dual G5 everything is almost painful (still usable though) when eyetv is exporting since it's saturating both cpus while exporting.

If eyetv is sending an intensive thread to one CPU and Aperture does the same it will max out a dual CPU rig. On a quad CPU rig, if either of those apps is multi-threaded then the extra CPUs will come in handy. If they aren't multi-threaded then those two extra CPU cores will be doing little work. I doubt either of those apps will send out four threads each so an 8-core Mac Pro will be overkill. Very few apps send out that many threads. Only apps like Maya and Lightwave, etc

[~bash $]

You know what I really found interesting about the Mac Pro - the memory bandwidth. I saw a metric over at macresearch.org (and admittedly I don't pay that much attention to peoples' benchmark "figures" because they always seem statistically uncontrolled) that found a degradation of performance when addressing memory after a certain point - possibly due to the bandwidth limitation of the memory I/O. Sure makes 16 GB of RAM less attractive if performances degrades severely past a certain pt.

Memory Performance - MacResearch

But more on topic, definitely multi-tasking is the prime benefit from having a Mac Pro. I can run 2 cores on something silly like Einstein@Home and still keep one core for my MATLAB simulations and still be able to do my routine tasks without the machine getting bogged down.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ~bash $ 

You know what I really found interesting about the Mac Pro - the memory bandwidth. I saw a metric over at macresearch.org (and admittedly I don't pay that much attention to peoples' benchmark "figures" because they always seem statistically uncontrolled) that found a degradation of performance when addressing memory after a certain point - possibly due to the bandwidth limitation of the memory I/O. Sure makes 16 GB of RAM less attractive if performances degrades severely past a certain pt.

That's where the G5 has an edge. A single FSB at 1/2 CPU speed, versus quad pumped 200MHz FSB that Intel uses.

[shadowduck]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I have also seen benchmarks where the 8-core system has been slower than the quad-core system, but in the comparisons I've seen that's always because the 8-core system is clocked lower than the quad-core system.

For example, the fastest Woodcrest you can buy runs at 3GHz so Apple can offer a 3GHz quad-core system. The fastest Clovertown money can buy runs at 2.66 GHz so if you run a single threaded app that saturates one core, the quad-core system will beat the 8-core system purely due to the faster clock. So my question is, have you seen benchmarks where equally clocked quad-core systems run faster than 8-core systems?

No, you are correct in the clock has to be lower. Since Intel is not making a true quad-core system (remember its just 2 dual cores on 1 die with some shared cache), the heat requirements dictate the clock has to be lower. If you clock a Quad Core C2D or Clovertown up to say past X6800 speed the heat output is very impressive and not in a good way.

[Bob Marley]

Guys get a life. Seriously. You gotta get friends. IM NOT JOKING.

If 2 cores isnt enough for you, go for 4. If four isnt enough, you need to move out of your mom's basement playing world of warcraft.

[macgeek2005]

Guys, you're getting carried away with this "8! 16! 32 core!" thing.

For 99.7% of people (fairly accurate guess), an 800mhz G4 iMac is a phenomenal computer that does everything they could ever want to do.

It's just us geeks that care about this rediculous power.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

Guys, you're getting carried away with this "8! 16! 32 core!" thing.

For 99.7% of people (fairly accurate guess), an 800mhz G4 iMac is a phenomenal computer that does everything they could ever want to do.

It's just us geeks that care about this rediculous power.

I use a 1.5Ghz G4 PowerBook and it does everything I need a computer to do. It can play Call of Duty 2 on high settings and edit DVCPRO HD 1080P video in real time. But if I need to render out a large project I'd take the project files across to the fastest desktop I can find. I'm a laptop man however so I'm waiting for a serious beast of a laptop before my next upgrade. The current 2.33Ghz C2Ds aren't enough. C2D @ 3Ghz and maybe I'll reach for the wallet. A quad-core laptop and I'm there.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I use a 1.5Ghz G4 PowerBook and it does everything I need a computer to do. It can play Call of Duty 2 on high settings and edit DVCPRO HD 1080P video in real time. But if I need to render out a large project I'd take the project files across to the fastest desktop I can find. I'm a laptop man however so I'm waiting for a serious beast of a laptop before my next upgrade. The current 2.33Ghz C2Ds aren't enough. C2D @ 3Ghz and maybe I'll reach for the wallet. A quad-core laptop and I'm there.

See, that's what I mean. 99.7% of the "mass consumers" don't need to render out large projects.

Teens that buy their computers so that they can do homework and use iTunes and iPhoto don't need that kind of power.

Old people that need it to check their email and stay in touch with friends don't need it.

Your typical american family, who gets their computer to surf the web, listen to music, store videos and photos, and do homework, certainly DOESN'T need anything more powerful than a 800mhz G4.

Seriously, people that Don't need more than a 2.0Ghz iMac are the VAST majority.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

See, that's what I mean. 99.7% of the "mass consumers" don't need to render out large projects.

Teens that buy their computers so that they can do homework and use iTunes and iPhoto don't need that kind of power.

Old people that need it to check their email and stay in touch with friends don't need it.

Your typical american family, who gets their computer to surf the web, listen to music, store videos and photos, and do homework, certainly DOESN'T need anything more powerful than a 800mhz G4.

Seriously, people that Don't need more than a 2.0Ghz iMac are the VAST majority.

That's really an old argument though. It's partially true but you're not taking into account that all this new power comes at ever better prices and also means your computer is more future proof. The more power you get at such great prices means you've made a sound investment that will last a much longer time than computers used to last in the past.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

That's really an old argument though. It's partially true but you're not taking into account that all this new power comes at ever better prices and also means your computer is more future proof. The more power you get at such great prices means you've made a sound investment that will last a much longer time than computers used to last in the past.

"Used to last"?

There are people out there who bought a Blue and White G3 tower almost a decade ago! And they are still using it just fine, because it runs Tiger, holds a couple hard drives, holds up to a Gig of ram, and can check email, play music, do photos, videos, anything an average person needs.

I hate to break it to you, but those old computers you are talking about didn't "used to last" they are STILL lasting.

[QuadG5Man]

Originally Posted by Bob Marley 

Guys get a life. Seriously. You gotta get friends. IM NOT JOKING.

If 2 cores isnt enough for you, go for 4. If four isnt enough, you need to move out of your mom's basement playing world of warcraft.

For anyone who converts video on a computer, it's never fast enough. I can guarantee an 8 core mac (drool....) will not be fast enough for me, but they will be the fastest available, and an impressive machine and bump in speed. For many mac users, it's about saving time, whether that means saving money or not.

[lordarka]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

"Used to last"?

There are people out there who bought a Blue and White G3 tower almost a decade ago! And they are still using it just fine, because it runs Tiger, holds a couple hard drives, holds up to a Gig of ram, and can check email, play music, do photos, videos, anything an average person needs.

I hate to break it to you, but those old computers you are talking about didn't "used to last" they are STILL lasting.

It's good to know that for some people, an ugly Blue and White is adequate for them. And then there are those of us who actually DO push our computers, and would like to see a 2h per frame render distributed over a render farm that literally fits in a single box. What do you have against us? The 8-core systems are not going to be predominantly purchased by e-mailers or time-wasting gamers; they will be purchased by people with pro needs or the desire to complete their art projects faster. If the discussion does not intrigue you, fair enough, but I hardly need you or anyone else telling me what my needs are based on what "99.4%" of others are doing with their Powermac G3's.

Arka C.

[Simon]

This baloney about how an 800MHz iMac G4 is good enough for most people is irrelevant. Mac Pros are professional computers. Professional requirements are independent of what the 'typical American family' needs at home. Some people need more power for the work they do. And Apple caters to those people. They also offer a mini for those that needs less. Having options is a good thing. There was a time when 640kB RAM was considered more than enough. A few years later people laughed at that. Why should Apple act as if 4 cores were all people ever need?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

We've both gotta buy Quad G5s before we can justify buying an Intel Mac.

Very true, bro.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

"Used to last"?

There are people out there who bought a Blue and White G3 tower almost a decade ago! And they are still using it just fine, because it runs Tiger, holds a couple hard drives, holds up to a Gig of ram, and can check email, play music, do photos, videos, anything an average person needs.

I hate to break it to you, but those old computers you are talking about didn't "used to last" they are STILL lasting.

I agree with much of your comment, macgeek. The luxury we have enjoyed of having the industry uphold or exceed Moore's Law has made many people hardware snobs. G3s were once the top of the line. If you read folklore.org you can see the amazing things the original Mac team did with such little hardware. But you'll be criticized for saying the average person doesn't need more power than what the G3 offers. The average person of today is different from the average person of yesteryear. The average person of today may want to run the latest OS (which, unfortunately, the G3s will no longer be able to do when Leopard debuts), run the latest software, multitask a lot of complex applications, take advantage of multiple logins, be a first class citizen on the 'net, possibly run Windows for full compatibility with the rest of the world and run the latest demanding games. A G3 won't accomplish that. Heck, the MacBook (and mini) won't even accomplish some of that because of Apple's cheapskate choice of int'degraded graphics. That does not mean G3s suck - it just means they're not going to fulfill common contemporary wants and needs.

[CIA]

Hey, if you want to complain about how 4 cores are way overkill for 90% of the population, go over to the iMac forum and start a thread there about it. This is the PowerMac/MacPro forum, the people reading the threads in here should need all the cores they can get. We bought the workstation mac, not the family friendly consumer mac.
We are not the happy home user surfing the web and writing emails. We are crunching video, running scientific calc's, rendering photo's. We need horsepower, and this is where we discuss it.

90% of the computer using public should be over in the other forums, go there and complain about how computers are too fast.

[~bash $]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I use a 1.5Ghz G4 PowerBook and it does everything I need a computer to do. It can play Call of Duty 2 on high settings and edit DVCPRO HD 1080P video in real time. But if I need to render out a large project I'd take the project files across to the fastest desktop I can find. I'm a laptop man however so I'm waiting for a serious beast of a laptop before my next upgrade. The current 2.33Ghz C2Ds aren't enough. C2D @ 3Ghz and maybe I'll reach for the wallet. A quad-core laptop and I'm there.

Geez, are the fans constantly fired up? The noise got old for me quickly - if nothing else, the mac pro is quiet!

[~bash $]

Originally Posted by zaghahzag 

yeah, people have said everything right so far, i'd like to add just one thing.. for most of us the jump from one to two cores is HUGE because it means that when the CPU is slammed, the machine is still entirely useable as if nothing had happened.

Now, with 4 or 8 cores, you need to be doing 4 or 8 100% CPU utilizing procs (or an app that can use the multiple cores, like photoshop or FCP) before you notice a slowdown. How often does that happen for most of us? Not very often.

With that said, my dual core notebook has been a godsend for me as i often run scientific calculations on it that use a cpu 100% for days on end. This would render my old single proc mac almost unusable.

Yeah, I think my dual core MB is enough. Until of course Core RealTime Hyperspace Rendering comes out and makes my computer suddenly feel old and slow again. Weird how that psychology works. (Cue big business laugh)

But you're on pointe - 2 cores are pretty much fine - one core can be encoding/calculating something while the other frees me up to go about my daily business.

[himself]

Originally Posted by CIA 

Hey, if you want to complain about how 4 cores are way overkill for 90% of the population, go over to the iMac forum and start a thread there about it. This is the PowerMac/MacPro forum, the people reading the threads in here should need all the cores they can get. We bought the workstation mac, not the family friendly consumer mac.
We are not the happy home user surfing the web and writing emails. We are crunching video, running scientific calc's, rendering photo's. We need horsepower, and this is where we discuss it.

90% of the computer using public should be over in the other forums, go there and complain about how computers are too fast.

Couldn't have said it better. Yeah, G3's were "top of the line" a few years ago. We got a lot of work done using PPC 603's and 604's in college years ago. But the software these days does a hell of a lot more than when the G3 was top of the line. Try watching 1080p HD video on a G3, and tell me that it is more than enough for today's users. The OS is doing a lot of stuff that those older machines can never support, and some things that today's machines can't even fully handle.

Someone mentioned a key word earlier in this thread, futureproof. The software and tasks that computers will be doing in the near future are going to surpass what they do today, and it would be wise to to get a machine that will be prepared for those tasks. Maybe a lot of software isn't multi-threaded to take advantage multi-core CPUs today, but that is guaranteed to change very soon because the hardware is trending in that direction.

[Aron Peterson]

Bear in mind Intel is bringing back hyperthreading later this year. OS X doesn't support it yet and who knows if it will.

[CIA]

For the record I would love to see a pair of multi-lane eSATA ports on the new Macs, err, ANY eSATA support would be nice for that matter. I have a sad feeling that FW800 support will vanish quickly once Apple starts pumping out eSATA machines tho.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Bear in mind Intel is bringing back hyperthreading later this year. OS X doesn't support it yet and who knows if it will.

Link? I certainly haven't seen any news about this, although it wouldn't surprise me. The only upcoming revision I know of is the SSE4 + 45nm one.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by CIA 

For the record I would love to see a pair of multi-lane eSATA ports on the new Macs, err, ANY eSATA support would be nice for that matter. I have a sad feeling that FW800 support will vanish quickly once Apple starts pumping out eSATA machines tho.

The daisy-chain nature of FireWire makes it too useful of a technology to be completely replaced by eSATA. Use up your eSATA ports, and you'll need a whole new port-multiplying enclosure. Use up your FW800 port? Just daisy-chain on the next device.

Not saying an eSATA port wouldn't be nice, though.

[xe0]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

For 99.7% of people (fairly accurate guess), an 800mhz G4 iMac is a phenomenal computer that does everything they could ever want to do.

It's just us geeks that care about this rediculous power.

Your probably right. However, your forgetting about a segment of people who use these machines to make a living.

As far as I am concerned, they can't build a computer fast enough. Until a computer can keep up with my commands in real time (video rendering and or 300dpi manipulations made instantly) - 100% of computers are ridiculously slow.