[F*ckDell]

Now that we are entering October, we are quickly a month away from seeing Intel first release of a quad core CPU. My question is, would it be worth waiting until November to get a Mac Pro with a possible 2x 2.5 Ghz Core 2 Quad, or is it just becoming over kill? I understand Apple is always updating their software and hardware, so you can't play the game of waiting for the next be thing. But we're only talking about 3 month difference from the updated Mac Pro to the possible Core 2 Quad update.

Aside from that question, does anyone know if the Core 2 Quad will really out perform the current Core 2 Duos? And how about those Intel CPUs that have front bus of 1,333?? Worth the wait, upgradable? Questions... questions... questions...

[DrBoar]

Having a octacore does not give that much more performace unless you either have a very multithreaded application or run many CPU intensive apps at the same time.

I will wait for the next generation of Pros as they hopefully use standard memory sticks. Way cheaper and also with lower latencies than the current ones.


If you need the pro now, get it now. The CPUs are upgradeble in the future.

[The Ancient One]

I would hate to be without mine right now. You only have so much time - how much of it do you want to spend waiting?

[polendo]

Server class CPUs like Xeons have always used EEC, higher latency memories. IMHO, because of the nature that which these cpus were designed, I doubt that they will use faster, no error correcting memory.

[masugu]

maybe the new pros will accomodate SLI graphics. seems a shame that such a low-level grahics config is standard (now)

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by polendo

Server class CPUs like Xeons have always used EEC, higher latency memories. IMHO, because of the nature that which these cpus were designed, I doubt that they will use faster, no error correcting memory.

Personally I'll trade the improved reliability of FB-ECC memory for a few nanoseconds of access time. For me, stability is paramount.

When your computer crashes and you lose your work, it doesn't matter how fast your computer was.

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Personally I'll trade the improved reliability of FB-ECC memory for a few nanoseconds of access time. For me, stability is paramount.

It's more like 40 nanoseconds more (compared with Conroe chipsets using standard DDR2,) which, in the end, can be a pretty big performance drain depending on what you're doing.

Originally Posted by masugu

maybe the new pros will accommodate SLI graphics. seems a shame that such a low-level grahics config is standard (now)

I doubt it. The Xeon can only support up to 28 PCI express lanes, making a 16x SLI config impossible. They might do an 8x... maybe. But from what I've heard you can already do that in windows, so it just lacks software support.

[TimmyDee51]

I've been having the same debate with myself. Do I buy one now? Do I wait? The way I see it, I'm going to buy one soon and not wait for the January update. Here's the scenarios I've thought up.

1. Apple releases an 8-core Mac Pro. Cool. For some tasks, this might be useful for me, but a higher clock speed per core is probably better for most of my tasks. Plus, the memory speed won't be increasing, nor will it be likely to move to a cheaper type of RAM. Fine with me, because like Cadaver, I would prefer stability over a slight speed advantage.

2. Apple uses Clovertown to cut down on logic board costs and increase profits while maintaining a quad-core machine, a la the dual-core G5s (with an octo- option for the top of the line). While this will probably cut down on the core-to-core communication overhead, it does limit the number of cores you can have if/when you decide to upgrade. This scenario isn't really an upgrade, so it may or may not happen.

Given either scenario, I don't see any significant changes happening to the Mac Pro line. After I thought it through, I realized that there wasn't any real reason for me to wait.

[lizardgator]

I'm in a bit of a different situation. I'm moving out of state and recently sold my Poermac. I'll be settled in my new home the second week of November and intended to purchase a new MacPro at that time. Now I'm not really sure what to do, I usually buy a new computer when it is first released but this time it's sort of out of my hands. The question is if at that time a new MacPro will be so close to being released that it doesn't make sense to buy at that time. If I knew for sure new MacPro's would be released in January I will wait.

[The Ancient One]

Originally Posted by lizardgator

I'm in a bit of a different situation. I'm moving out of state and recently sold my Poermac. I'll be settled in my new home the second week of November and intended to purchase a new MacPro at that time. Now I'm not really sure what to do, I usually buy a new computer when it is first released but this time it's sort of out of my hands. The question is if at that time a new MacPro will be so close to being released that it doesn't make sense to buy at that time. If I knew for sure new MacPro's would be released in January I will wait.

Well, I'm pretty sure they will be announced in January.

[Velocity211]

If you currently have a machine that works, just keep it. Wait til the quad comes out. That's what I would do.

[CIA]

For once it seems like software is lagging behind the hardware.
Everyone has different uses for the machines they own. I would rather see 4 processors (a single quad core chip, or 2 duals) over 3Ghz, then 8 cores running at 2.5Ghz. I don't run a zillion programs at once (remnants of my OS9 and earlier days). Actually, I'd rather have a dual single processors running at over 4Ghz.
Later on, once software starts working better with multi-threads etc. I'll take more cores. Yes, I know OSX is great at multi-threading, but most single apps still need to be optimized.
Works for me, but someone who renders on 2 or more programs at once, would probably take more cores over faster chip speeds.
Either way, seems like the current MacPros are easy to upgrade, which is a nice change over the G5 era machines.

[F*ckDell]

I agree with you CIA, I've been thinking about that myself. I can't remember the last time I've seen software behind hardware...

Regardless to getting a quad machine, how about that front bus? Would that bump of the FB really be worth the wait? I got a machine now that does the job, but would like to get a MacPro sometime down the road. 1,333 FB seems really nice!

[[email protected]]

the Clovertown Quad core chips will be exactly the same as the Kentsfield quad core chips, just named something different. They will be pinned for socket LGA775, so unless the current Woodcrest chips in the Mac Pros are socket LGA775 instead of Socket 771, they will not be just a drop in upgrade, you will have to purchase a whole new Mac Pro.AaaaA
Also, the amount of PCI-Express lanes are not controlled by the Processor, they are controlled by the northbridge on the motherboard. It is how many lanes that the Northbridge can handle that determines how many lanes can be put to each PCI-Express slot. And whoever posted that SLI on a windows has been done, is right, they have 2 16x PCI-e slots on most boards now, plus some 4x or 1 x slots, so the only thing Apple needs to do is write drivers for the hardware. That is all that needs to happen for SLI or crossfire support on a mac, unless the boards they are using suck and dont have that many PCI-E lanes. In that case, well, no x16, so no Quad SLI, but SLI is certainly possible.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

the Clovertown Quad core chips will be exactly the same as the Kentsfield quad core chips, just named something different. They will be pinned for socket LGA775, so unless the current Woodcrest chips in the Mac Pros are socket LGA775 instead of Socket 771, they will not be just a drop in upgrade, you will have to purchase a whole new Mac Pro.AaaaA

Anandtech already upgraded a Mac Pro with Clovertown pre-production samples, so we know Clovertowns fit in a MacPro.

I doubt we'll see non-ECC RAM in a Mac Pro since they use Xeons and always will use Xeons.

And as for the orginal question, will we see an update of the Mac Pro in November, I doubt it. Updated Mac Pros will probably come out in January, as Power Macs typically came out around then (except for the PM G5s which were a year apart).

[TimmyDee51]

I just got my Mac Pro last week, and I have to say I'm not sorry. The thing is wicked fast.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

Now that we are entering October, we are quickly a month away from seeing Intel first release of a quad core CPU. My question is, would it be worth waiting until November to get a Mac Pro with a possible 2x 2.5 Ghz Core 2 Quad, or is it just becoming over kill? I understand Apple is always updating their software and hardware, so you can't play the game of waiting for the next be thing. But we're only talking about 3 month difference from the updated Mac Pro to the possible Core 2 Quad update.

Aside from that question, does anyone know if the Core 2 Quad will really out perform the current Core 2 Duos? And how about those Intel CPUs that have front bus of 1,333?? Worth the wait, upgradable? Questions... questions... questions...

AnandTech: Apple's Mac Pro - Upgrading CPUs, Memory & Running XP

They stuck a couple press-sample Quad Cores into current Mac Pros. There was no real increases in performance. It's most likely due to Intel's pathetic FSB, seems to me they're completely saturated and no amount of additional cores on that thing will make it go any faster.

I have no idea about any new motherboards that might be able to actually take advantage of a Quad Core chip.

On the bright side, it does show the potential for upgrades on Macs now.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They stuck a couple press-sample Quad Cores into current Mac Pros. There was no real increases in performance. It's most likely due to Intel's pathetic FSB, seems to me they're completely saturated and no amount of additional cores on that thing will make it go any faster.

Thanks for the link. That looks like a complete disaster. A quad core Mac Pro is consistently slower than a dual core Mac Pro in games (why???) and a plain Jane Conroe Core 2 Duo blows the socks out of both of them at everything other than 3D rendering (worst of all QuickTime and iTunes show no benefit of having four cores versus having only two). This is really depressing considering how expensive that Mac Pro is.

I know they couldn't launch without a quad core (because of G5 quads) but maybe they come to their senses, drop the prices and go with Core 2 and plain DDR2 which is actually faster.

[BigJimSlade]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

They stuck a couple press-sample Quad Cores into current Mac Pros. There was no real increases in performance.

You've read that wrong. They explicitly say they are not allowed to release performance data for the Clovertown. The figures compare 4 cores vs. 2 cores (not 8).

That said, Apple still seem to lag behind their hardware when it comes to getting perfomance increases out of multiple cores. For example it's taken them a year to get Logic making anything like full use of the quad G5, and most of the Compressor codecs aren't using multiple threads well yet.

[webmonkie]

I can wait to get mine. I have a Dual 2.5GHz G5 with 6.5gigs of memory right now.
All I'm waiting for is Photoshop CS3 universal edition to make the upgrade.

[brokenjago]

I got my Mac Pro and I'm loving it. This thing is insanely fast.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by thebunny 

Thanks for the link. That looks like a complete disaster. A quad core Mac Pro is consistently slower than a dual core Mac Pro in games (why???) and a plain Jane Conroe Core 2 Duo blows the socks out of both of them at everything other than 3D rendering (worst of all QuickTime and iTunes show no benefit of having four cores versus having only two). This is really depressing considering how expensive that Mac Pro is.

I know they couldn't launch without a quad core (because of G5 quads) but maybe they come to their senses, drop the prices and go with Core 2 and plain DDR2 which is actually faster.

Games are largely single threaded (or perhaps two threads), so going over one or two processors doesn't help at all.

Run a highly threaded benchmark (~10 "equal" threads) and you'll see much more proportional gains.

[mac128k-1984]

I've had my MacPro since September and I'm so happy I decided not wait. There's always going to be the latest and greatest computer being released around the corner. For me, I get to enjoy an insanely fast computer now rather then end of 06 or beginning of 07.

[Jonaziz]

I don't know why all these threads always end up debating software lagging being hardware, but when was the last time you were running a single application? Or better yet, when were you forced to close applications to save CPU power while doing a really intensive render/compression/etc? The point of more CPUs is to allow you to do more at once, not put your computer on virtual hold whenever you need to do one of those complex tasks. There are more uses to multiple cores than wasting them all on one application.

I personally would prefer applications stay with the limitation to 2 or 4 cores at the most. That way I can keep working and using my computer while waiting for a time/processor intensive task to be completed.

On the topic, I would wait if the computer is fine. I personally am starting to find my Rev A Dual G5 to be falling a bit behind the times, but I am waiting for the clovertown-based Mac Pros to surface as I'm in no rush to dump the G5. I guess it's needs versus wants, you decide what you need and when.

[Leonard]

Thing is, unless you're running background processes, you really can't do more than 1 thing at a time. If you have Excel, Word, Safari, and mail open at the same time, you can only be using one at a time and therefore the CPU isn't being used by the other 3. If you're running Boinc (which is a background process), Photoshop (waiting for a filter to finish), and your working in mail, then yes, all three apps are using CPU. Just because apps are open, doesn't mean they are using CPU. Most apps are actually just waiting on the user for input.

[Jonaziz]

In reading my post, I think I made it clear that I was referring to background processes which are time consuming. I assume that this computer is aimed at professionals, who are likely to suffer through these lengthy time wasting procedures. Productivity is key, that's why I value the exponentially increasing core numbers even with the relatively stagnant speed increases.

[holstien]

I think buying now or later depends on what you are doing.

If you are mostly gaming, word processing, graphics design, and light coding, then I think you'll find the difference between now and then slim... 4 cores is a substancial amount of spare CPU hanging around.

If you are frequently compiling massive projects, doing scientific calculations, or have some special app that is embarrasingly parrallel, then waiting might be in your best interest.

Computers are like cars, cameras, and cosmetics. There will always be the next greatest thing on the horizon. Buy one you really like, and love it to death, and you'll have gotten your monies worth.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Games are largely single threaded (or perhaps two threads), so going over one or two processors doesn't help at all.

That explains why it's not faster with four cores compared to two. It doesn't explain why it's actually *slower* with four cores compared to two. That makes no sense to me.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Jonaziz 

I don't know why all these threads always end up debating software lagging being hardware, but when was the last time you were running a single application? Or better yet, when were you forced to close applications to save CPU power while doing a really intensive render/compression/etc? The point of more CPUs is to allow you to do more at once, not put your computer on virtual hold whenever you need to do one of those complex tasks. There are more uses to multiple cores than wasting them all on one application.

I personally would prefer applications stay with the limitation to 2 or 4 cores at the most. That way I can keep working and using my computer while waiting for a time/processor intensive task to be completed.

You want at least as many application theads as you have execution threads (cores). Any OS with a non-braindead scheduler should handle it just fine and remain responsive. There's no good reason to artificially hamper performance like that.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by thebunny 

That explains why it's not faster with four cores compared to two. It doesn't explain why it's actually *slower* with four cores compared to two. That makes no sense to me.

Quake 4 was about 2% faster with the quad and Half-Life 2 was about 2% faster with the dual... all the game benchmarks are within a couple percent of each other. Sounds like "random" differences between tests.

[Titanium Man]

For me, the more cores, the merrier. I'm still holding onto a PM G5 dualie for now, but when the dual-Clovertowns come out, all bets are off. For one thing, I have some Windoze apps that are very processor intensive. They peg my PC at 100% of CPU usage (Athlon 64 X2) for days at a time. I want to be rid of that piece of junk, which means moving everything over to a Mac Pro with virtualization. But I don't want to be slowed to a crawl with my Mac work, either. So eight cores sounds great to me. Of course, it'll have to be stuffed full of RAM, too, but that's another story altogether.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Quake 4 was about 2% faster with the quad and Half-Life 2 was about 2% faster with the dual... all the game benchmarks are within a couple percent of each other. Sounds like "random" differences between tests.

True but flip to the next few pages: F.E.A.R. is 1%, Rise of Legends is 11.5%, Oblivion is 10%/3% slower on the quad. Doesn't seem like an error in measurement. Weird.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by Titanium Man 

For me, the more cores, the merrier. I'm still holding onto a PM G5 dualie for now, but when the dual-Clovertowns come out, all bets are off.

Yes, they'll release the new chips on November 13th. I doubt Apple wll change the processor so soon. In any way, I'm hoping they'll start using the non-Xeon quad core - Kentsfield instead of the Xeon version - Clovertown.