[Eug Wanker]

So 2006 will finally see the 3 GHz Tower Mac.

The Tech Report: Intel's Woodcrest processor previewed











In summary, not only is Woodcrest über fast, it's quite low power as well. Very impressive.

[Jason]

Looks wicked. I cant wait for the new powermacs...maybe then with the price cut of the current G5 systems I might be able to buy a G5 quad =] unless adobe go native around the same time as the new intel powermacs come out...then i would seriously consider making the switch to intel =]

[Eug Wanker]

Looks wicked. I cant wait for the new powermacs...maybe then with the price cut of the current G5 systems I might be able to buy a G5 quad =] unless adobe go native around the same time as the new intel powermacs come out...then i would seriously consider making the switch to intel =]

I suspect Apple will announce the Woodcrest Tower Macs at WWDC, in early August.

Adobe CS3 won't be out until 2007 however.

[TimmyDee51]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I suspect Apple will announce the Woodcrest Tower Macs at WWDC, in early August.

Adobe CS3 won't be out until 2007 however.

Wow. 2007. Sounds like Adobe is getting too big for their own good. That question from the Forbes interview about whether or not CS3 will be in time to help 2006 earnings means their investors must be getting antsy.

I'll probably be buying an Intel tower before then, though. That sounds like a bit too long to wait.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

have you ever seen the episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets to lead the Stonecutter's cult for the first time and basks himself in all of his new-found power and authority? Well, with the new Intel Tower-Macs... i'd be just like Homer.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

None of these benchmarks will mean anything to Mac users. I mean 3D studio Max and POV-RAY rendering?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

None of these benchmarks will mean anything to Mac users. I mean 3D studio Max and POV-RAY rendering?

I guess you've never heard of Cinebench then.



See how Woodcrest gets about 500 with the single-core 32-bit Cinebench?

Well, an 1.83 GHz Intel iMac would get about 280 on the same test:



Using both cores on the iMac, it gets a little over 500. In other words, one core of Woodcrest 3.0 is almost twice as fast as one core of Core Duo 1.83.

And if you use all 4 cores on a Woodcrest quad, it gets over 1500. That is very impressive, and it is much faster than the Quad G5 2.5 GHz (which is already extremely fast).

Plus, 3D Studio Max and POV-RAY are good tests of raw CPU power. Not to mention the fact that they WILL run on Intel Tower Macs.

Also, here's a Divx 6 encoding bench, which may have more meaning to some Mac users...



The other important point shown in these benches is that Woodcrest is both faster and lower power than Opteron, a chip that some anti-Intel types say Apple should have gone with. (That never did make sense though, since Apple's first priority was laptop chips IMO, and AMD never had a laptop chip that was competitive to Yonah.)

[Ken_F2]

Those Woodcrest results were using FB-DIMMs with DDR2-533 at relatively slow timings.

Let's hope Apple uses DDR2-667 or DDR2-800 in its systems.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Ken_F2

Those Woodcrest results were using FB-DIMMs with DDR2-533 at relatively slow timings.

Yeah, which makes these benches all the more impressive.

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

So 2006 will finally see the 3 GHz Tower Mac.

The Tech Report: Intel's Woodcrest processor previewed

In summary, not only is Woodcrest über fast, it's quite low power as well. Very impressive.

Have you seen the SPEC results? SPEC results.

3057/2775. For reference, the 2.5 GHz 970MP in the Quad gets 1438/2076.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by rhashem

Have you seen the SPEC results? SPEC results.

3057/2775. For reference, the 2.5 GHz 970MP in the Quad gets 1438/2076.

Wow. I knew it was going to be good at integer, but I didn't realize it was THAT good.

[kick52]

aww yer. that sounds so fast. think about doom 3 or quake 4 on one of 'em... great frame rate. i still think they should keep the "Power" though. Mac Tower doesnt do the processor justice. at all.

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Wow. I knew it was going to be good at integer, but I didn't realize it was THAT good. :eek:

It's quite astounding, really. People have been saying for awhile that IPC scaling on integer code is dead, but Intel managed a huge improvement with the Conroe architecture. At 1019 SPECint/GHz, Woodcrest is 25% more efficient than Yonah, which is already a very good performer in integer code. It's about 33% more efficient than the Opteron, which is also a very good performer in integer code. Heck, it's even a few percent more efficient than Itanium 2, which had the highest SPECint/GHz number (by far) until now.

[jamil5454]

Can't wait to get my hands on one of these.

But then I'll have to find a hobby/profession that actually makes use of the power...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by rhashem

Have you seen the SPEC results? SPEC results.

3057/2775. For reference, the 2.5 GHz 970MP in the Quad gets 1438/2076.

Is that figure for the Quad in OSX (using GCC or XLC/XLF), or in AIX/Linux using one of IBMs newer releases of XLC/XLF?
Keep in mind that benchmark is single threaded, so a single 2.5Ghz 970 should get about the same score (with same cache, etc).

[Catfish_Man]

One thing I'm definitely going to do when SPECcpu '06 results come out is get a nice chart of how various processors did on the current one vs. the new. I expect Sun to take a beating due to 179.art changing... I'd also expect Intel to have a few issues with it just 'cause I have a hard time imagining them not optimizing for SPEC specifically (as opposed to companies with smaller compiler teams that can't put quite as much targeted optimization work in).

[KEL9000]

Originally Posted by kick52

aww yer. that sounds so fast. think about doom 3 or quake 4 on one of 'em... great frame rate. i still think they should keep the "Power" though. Mac Tower doesnt do the processor justice. at all.

mac pro

[kick52]

yer, well, it still isnt up to the power.

[Don Pickett]

Don't know if you meant to type Tower Macs, but I like it!

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by mduell

Is that figure for the Quad in OSX (using GCC or XLC/XLF), or in AIX/Linux using one of IBMs newer releases of XLC/XLF?
Keep in mind that benchmark is single threaded, so a single 2.5Ghz 970 should get about the same score (with same cache, etc).

That's using XLC on AIX. The delta is going to be even bigger on OS X, since GCC gets much closer to Intel C++ on x86 than it does to XLC on PowerPC.

Also, you're right the 970GX would get the same score. It's just that I haven't seen the 970GX scores, and Apple isn't shipping them in any Mac anyway.

[Eug Wanker]

Has there ever been an official announcement anywhere of the 970GX? There was this slipup in an article posted on IBM's site, but that doesn't count, cuz it wasn't written by IBM itself:

"The only processors currently supporting AltiVec are the G4 and G5. The G4 (including model numbers 7400 and 7410) and G4+ (7450 and 7455) processors are made by Motorola. (There are more models than just the ones listed here, but these are the most widely discussed.) The G5 chips include the IBM 970, 970FX, and 970GX; these are essentially POWER4™ cores with an AltiVec unit bolted on. So far, only PowerPC® processors have had AltiVec support, not the POWER™ line. If you want to buy "a computer with AltiVec," Apple's Mac line is your most likely option. For evaluation boards and custom designs, however, you can go with any of the many vendors who do development kits based on either the G4 or G5."

[mduell]

IBM's website links to this article at RWT.

I think GX pretty much dropped dead when Apple didn't take interest in it. IBM could use it in the JS20 blades, but the [email protected] and [email protected] seem to be working fine there.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

IBM's website links to this article at RWT.

I think GX pretty much dropped dead when Apple didn't take interest in it. IBM could use it in the JS20 blades, but the [email protected] and [email protected] seem to be working fine there.

The FX's 512 KB cache could have used a boost early on (ie. GX), but I guess there's not much point now...

Here are Woodcrest's launch speeds and specs:



Intel Woodcrest Pricing:

Processor.. Speed... FSB....... Price

Xeon 5160 3.00GHz 1333MHz $851
Xeon 5150 2.66GHz 1333MHz $690
Xeon 5148 2.33GHz 1333MHz $519
Xeon 5140 2.33GHz 1333MHz $455
Xeon 5130 2.00GHz 1333MHz $316

Xeon 5120 1.86GHz 1066MHz $256
Xeon 5110 1.60GHz 1066MHz $209

The launch date is June 26, just one month from now. In truth, I'm somewhat more interested in Conroe (since my next desktop will likely be an iMac), which is due 2 months from now:



I wonder if the fall iMacs will debut at 2.13-2.40 GHz with Conroe, or if they'll continue to use Yonah.

[i_wolf]

I have seen reports about the place (particularly a comment over on ars) that the tech report results for woodcrest are the least likely to 'blow you away' of all the woodcrest bench's out there.. and that says something.
Most of the tech reports benches focus on floating point where clock for clock conroe is quite a bit faster than an opteron; but it only tells part of the story until you look at some of the broader test conducted about the place.. conroe completely decimates it in integer and multimedia, vector, work.
Of course this is a new ground up design so there should be some performance improvements over what we see now as compilers mature and better optimise.
Personally I would like to get my hands on a macbook pro containing a merom processor. I imagine Augest/September time frame that will likely become a reality.

i_wolf

[spittingangels]

Well, the numbers themselves look impressive. But so did raw benchmarks of a PowerPC 604e against a PowerPC 603e...not to be cynical, but add in a few resource hog apps and Mac OS X, which granted is getting more and more efficient in places, and real world performance will probably still "rock" but not at such extreme numbers.

It will be good. It will be great. But I want to see it in real use with Mac OS X and Microsoft hog office and Photoshop first.

My two cents.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by ChrisTCC

Well, the numbers themselves look impressive. But so did raw benchmarks of a PowerPC 604e against a PowerPC 603e...

The 603e was terrible though. The 604e *did* kick its butt. Probably more than Woodcrest will over Yonah, actually, although maybe I just have bad memories from the s**t powermacs we had at school.

[mduell]

Eug Wanker: I doubt we'll see Conroe in the iMac; they're switch from Yonah to Merom in August or September. TDP for Conroe (65W) is much higher than the previous G5s (20-35W) and current Yonahs (31W)

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell

Eug Wanker: I doubt we'll see Conroe in the iMac; they're switch from Yonah to Merom in August or September. TDP for Conroe (65W) is much higher than the previous G5s (20-35W) and current Yonahs (31W)

Agreed. I think Conroe (and hopefully Kentsfield or Woodcrest) will find its way into the Mac Pro but the iMac will get Merom. The iMac is much more a desktop computer with notebook components than a full-fledged desktop (heat, power, space, etc.)

[Eug Wanker]

Yeah, you're right. Merom makes the most sense. I wonder when though, cuz it could continue to use Yonah this year. Hopefully Merom sooner than later. I'd like to see a 3.0 GHz iMac eventually though, before I buy, just because.

However, I will point out that my iMac uses a G5 2.0. I suspect the power output of that thing is closer to 50 Watts, yet the iMac is still quiet. Furthermore, the max speed of a MacBook is already 2.0 GHz, while the fastest iMac is also 2.0 GHz, suggesting to me that the iMac CPU is lower Wattage than it needs to be. So while I do agree Merom makes the most sense, the reason I'm a little unsure is because there is a pretty big hole in the power utilization spectrum between Merom and Conroe. Merom is 35 Watts TDP at the top end and it's unlikely the iMac would get the top end Merom anyways, and Conroe is 65 W TDP at the low end for the normal voltage chips. We're missing the entire middle range here, a middle range that I think the iMac can handle with no significant issues. However, I think the biggest issue here is cost. Low voltage Conroe chips would probably be too expensive, and top speed Merom chips would be the same.

Interestingly, there will be a Conroe-L, single core chip. I don't know what kind of Mac these will be used in... Possibly an eMac? Actually probably not. I'd expect the eMac (which is all about low cost) to get Core Solo (and previously would have even considered Celeron M was a possibility), and Conroe-L isn't supposed to come out until 2007 anyway.

[quangdiggity]

i dont really get all these numbers but w8:

the Woodcrest is the fastest, right?
then comes the Conroe ? or r they the same thing?
and Yonah/current Core Duo is the slower one..

in anny case i think the new macs, the new imac- should all get a 64-bit processor, Conroe or woodcrest...

hopefully Leopard will be released with the woodcrest/64-bit macs....... all at the WWDC in august
and it will fly at the speed of light !!!!!!!!

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by Gio-mania

the Woodcrest is the fastest, right?
then comes the Conroe ? or r they the same thing?
and Yonah/current Core Duo is the slower one..

You have to differentiate between the processor and the product. The three products are "Merom", "Conroe", and "Woodcrest". These are code-names, by the way, like Yonah is for the Core Duo. Each of these products is targetted at a different market. "Woodcrest" is part of Intel's Xeon line, and is targetted towards workstations and servers. "Conroe" is part of Intel's desktop line. "Merom" is part of Intel's mobile line. These are all, at the architectural level, basically the same chip. All three are based on the "Core 2" microarchitecture (sometimes referred to as the "Merom" or "Conroe" architecture, before Intel revealed the "Core 2" branding). The differences between them are clockspeed, power usage, and features. For example, Merom is a Core 2 chip with a lower clockspeed and voltage, allowing for reduced power dissipation. Woodcrest is a Core 2 chip with a higher clockspeed and voltage, higher power dissipation, and a faster bus and features like support for SMP.

Yonah, and the current Core Duo aren't part of the Merom line. They're based on an older architecture that is substantially less efficient (and also not 64-bit).

[spittingangels]

I think that no matter what, Apple would be stupid to NOT utilize a chip AND architecture (the two go hand in hand) that is MUCH faster than the iMacs and the MacBook Pros. You have to give the consumer a reason to buy a tower that costs more, it not a alot more depending on pricing.

That and could you please finally give me 5 PCIe slots and more than two drive bays. I have 5 hard drives in my G4, I should be able to have more than two drives in my Mac tower without having to by a third party product.

Even the old Quadras had a ton of Nubus slots - anyone remember Nubus (and how slot it was)

[MindFad]

My loins are warm with anticipation.

[Simon]

Speaking of Woodcrest and Core 2, will Woodcrest be marketed under the Xeon label or under the Core 2 label? I guess Merom and Conroe will both be called Core 2, but how will Intel differentiate? Just by numbers?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Speaking of Woodcrest and Core 2, will Woodcrest be marketed under the Xeon label or under the Core 2 label? I guess Merom and Conroe will both be called Core 2, but how will Intel differentiate? Just by numbers?

I posted this earlier in the thread, but here it is again...

Woodcrest is Xeon:

Processor.. Speed... FSB....... Price

Xeon 5160 3.00GHz 1333MHz $851
Xeon 5150 2.66GHz 1333MHz $690
Xeon 5148 2.33GHz 1333MHz $519
Xeon 5140 2.33GHz 1333MHz $455
Xeon 5130 2.00GHz 1333MHz $316

Xeon 5120 1.86GHz 1066MHz $256
Xeon 5110 1.60GHz 1066MHz $209

IMO, the only Mac Pro Quad that makes sense would be one that uses the 3 GHz Xeon 5160, in terms of marketing.

[Simon]

I saw that Xeon stuff but w/o any source so I wasn't sure how reliable that info is. Still, how will Intel differentiate Merom and Conroe? They're both Core 2, so what's it gonna be?

[Eug Wanker]

The Woodcrest wiki (among other places) has the names:

Xeon 5110(1.6GHz/4MB L2/1066MHz FSB)
Xeon 5120(1.86GHz/4MB L2/1066MHz FSB)
Xeon 5130(2GHz/4MB L2/1333MHz FSB)
Xeon 5140(2.33GHz/4MB L2/1333MHz FSB)
Xeon 5150(2.66GHz/4MB L2/1333MHz FSB)
Xeon 5160(3GHz/4MB L2/1333MHz FSB)

Merom with use a similar T/L naming scheme as Yonah. For example, my Core Duo 2.0 is T2500. 2.0 GHz Merom with 4 MB cache will be called T7200. Conroe begins with "E". E6700 is 2.67 GHz.

Personally I think the names suck, which I suspect is why Apple doesn't use them.

[Simon]

Exactly the info I was looking for. Thanks.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by ChrisTCC

That and could you please finally give me 5 PCIe slots and more than two drive bays. I have 5 hard drives in my G4, I should be able to have more than two drives in my Mac tower without having to by a third party product.

Even the old Quadras had a ton of Nubus slots - anyone remember Nubus (and how slot it was)

I'm fine with the 3 PCIe slots (but if they could fit in more... they should) but the two drives is ridiculous. 3 should be a minimum... if not 4-5.

[F*ckDell]

What about those damn Clevertowns... anyone have an opinion on how bad ass or not so bad ass these will be... and a possible time line of when we can see them in Apples...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

What about those damn Clevertowns... anyone have an opinion on how bad ass or not so bad ass these will be... and a possible time line of when we can see them in Apples...

Clovertown (SMP-capable quads) is reportedly ahead of schedule; it's possible we'll see them before the end of 06, but they're most likely going to launch in the first half of 07.

I'm really unsure how Apple will go with the Mac Pro... could be single socket or dual socket, with at least two CPU sub-designs for each option.

[F*ckDell]

So there is a possibility of an 8 core Mac Pro in the future...?

Correct me if I am wrong, but for "cores" to work doesn't a problem need to be "coded" to use the cores? If we don't have software out that can handle 4 or even 8 cores, why bother spending the cash?! Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get a Quad and the fact that I just got an HDV - rendering those movies are going to take forever on any machine including a Quad.

If in the next few years, we begin to see 50 or 100 cores, how is the coding for software going to keep up?

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

So there is a possibility of an 8 core Mac Pro in the future...?

Correct me if I am wrong, but for "cores" to work doesn't a problem need to be "coded" to use the cores? If we don't have software out that can handle 4 or even 8 cores, why bother spending the cash?! Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get a Quad and the fact that I just got an HDV - rendering those movies are going to take forever on any machine including a Quad.

If in the next few years, we begin to see 50 or 100 cores, how is the coding for software going to keep up?

Some tasks are easily parallelizable. 3D rendering is a good example, or compiling. In general if a task can be spread across >4 cores, it can be spread across >8 cores without more trouble (in fact Xcode and most 3D programs already support this for network compiles/renders). However... there's also a lot of stuff that's either difficult or impossible parallelize. The performance gap between the two categories of software will become very large in the future.

[Eug Wanker]

F*ckDell, There is Mac software already available that can easily handle 4 cores (or even 8).

I doubt we'll see an 8-core Mac any time soon though.

Originally Posted by mduell

All of the Intel Macs support 4GB RAM (2x2GB) and asymmetric dual channel (matched pairs are not needed).

Yes, but running unmatched pairs on Intel Macs with Intel 945GM is a Bad Idea™. Very bad 3D karma.

[dimmer]

NeXTstep was designed around 2 CPU's, moving to four (for the Quad G5) was a major step forward (and also enabled all the xGrid stuff) - parsing out threads to 2 CPUs was limited, but as soon as that barrier was broken, n+1 CPU's wasn't an issue (well, not -as much- of an issue). Apps can still be thread bound, but that's up to them, not the OS.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yes, but running unmatched pairs on Intel Macs with Intel 945GM is a Bad Idea™. Very bad 3D karma.

Depends how smart your OS is.

[F*ckDell]

Well how smart is your OS?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Gio-mania

i dont really get all these numbers but w8:

the Woodcrest is the fastest, right?
then comes the Conroe ? or r they the same thing?
and Yonah/current Core Duo is the slower one..

in anny case i think the new macs, the new imac- should all get a 64-bit processor, Conroe or woodcrest...

hopefully Leopard will be released with the woodcrest/64-bit macs....... all at the WWDC in august
and it will fly at the speed of light !!!!!!!!

Historically, Intel has disabled multiprocessor support in all except their Xeon product line. Therefore, any multiprocessor system will have Xeon processors. Intel has generally reserved their most powerful CPUs for their Xeon line - but they usually offer a non-Xeon equivalent that is nearly as fast, and less expensive. The last 'non-Xeon' processors that had multiprocessor support were the 'Coppermine' core Pentium3s from about 5 years ago. After that, Intel began disabling the multiprocessor capability in their chips so consumers were forced to purchase their more expensive Xeon processors.

I wouldn't expect Apple to use Xeon processors in their single-processor machines like the iMac.

When I say 'multiprocessor', I mean 'more than one chip'. A dual-core processor is a single chip - which is also a 'multiprocessor'. So, a pair of dual-core Xeons would yield 4 processors.

[Eug Wanker]

TS is talking about Intel Xserves for this summer.

[Eug Wanker]

Intel confirms 3.2 GHz Conroe Core 2 Extreme by the end of 2006.

C2E will debut at 2.93 GHz in July.