MOTUnation.com

This from Mac Rumors.com:

AnandTech took a Mac Pro, which comes with two Dual-Core Xeon (Woodcrest) processors and replaced them with samples of two Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors.

We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional.

The Mac Pro appeared to run fine with the Quad-Core processors, effectively giving them a 8-Core machine. While they are unable to give performance numbers due to non-disclosure agreements, the machine was reportedly stable. It also gives hope for current Mac Pro owners that they will be able to later upgrade the processors on their machine in the future. Clovertown Quad-core processors are expected to be available in late 2006.

As usual Frodo, you are out in front delivering breaking news! This multi-core stuff is sorta' fun, but I'm probably out of the game until they put 16 cores in a machine... by then I will have no choice but to upgrade.

Thanks. m

HCMarkus wrote:As usual Frodo, you are out in front delivering breaking news! This multi-core stuff is sorta' fun, but I'm probably out of the game until they put 16 cores in a machine... by then I will have no choice but to upgrade.

Thanks. m

Hey-- I'm thinking along similar lines.

It's all meaningless until software developers recode apps to make use of the extra resources.

Doesn't make sense to have an 8-core machine with a possible 32 GB RAM and only be able to make use of 4GB of it. Much has been said about Leopard, all of which I hope is true, but Tiger promised 64-bit functionality to developers (Panther did too, if I recall)-- yet here we are still in a 32 bit prison waiting for parole.

16 Cores? 64 GB RAM?
The very thought inspires one to don a condom.

The very thought inspires one to don a condom.

You hobbits are such neat freaks.

HCMarkus wrote:

The very thought inspires one to don a condom.

You hobbits are such neat freaks.

Not really-- we're just closer to the ground and we have bigger feet!

Yes, big shoes are expensive... . If this is any indication, Mrs. Frodo must be a very happy hobbit.

It's all meaningless until software developers recode apps to make use of the extra resources.

The problem is, developers won't recode apps that make use of the extra resources until consumers buy enough of the machines with those resources to make it worthwhile. Classic chicken and egg.

pdube wrote:

It's all meaningless until software developers recode apps to make use of the extra resources.

The problem is, developers won't recode apps that make use of the extra resources until consumers buy enough of the machines with those resources to make it worthwhile. Classic chicken and egg.

This is probably true. I also believe that consumers are largely helpless in terms of what makes it to market. We really don't have a choice in terms of 32- or 64-bit apps. We just buy what's available, which remains 32-bit.

In that sense, there's the "build it and they will come" concept. Users *are* asking for full 64-bit if it means better performance. The only real way to find out is to put it out there-- but I doubt that a lack of consumer interest is what's holding things back.

The fact that Apple has yet to get its own pro apps going in 64-bit and on the market could be playing a big role with third-party developers.

But the Intels are young yet, and Leopard remains months away, if this is what it's going to take. There was just as much talk about Tiger and the G5's going full-tilt 64 and it never happened.

If this gets put off for another 3 years, Apple might consider using the famous Beatle tune from Sgt. Pepper in their current ads:

Will you still need me when I'm 64?

Frodo wrote:This from Mac Rumors.com:

AnandTech took a Mac Pro, which comes with two Dual-Core Xeon (Woodcrest) processors and replaced them with samples of two Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors.

We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional.

The Mac Pro appeared to run fine with the Quad-Core processors, effectively giving them a 8-Core machine. While they are unable to give performance numbers due to non-disclosure agreements, the machine was reportedly stable. It also gives hope for current Mac Pro owners that they will be able to later upgrade the processors on their machine in the future. Clovertown Quad-core processors are expected to be available in late 2006.

This is really great news... when our OS and applications take advantage of multiple cores. As it is now 100% of the cores are not being utilized so were going to see Leopard address this but it's up to the developers to utilize this within their applications... time will tell.

newrigel wrote:This is really great news... when our OS and applications take advantage of multiple cores. As it is now 100% of the cores are not being utilized so were going to see Leopard address this but it's up to the developers to utilize this within their applications... time will tell.

Time.

We've been patient, certainly, and such a report is encouraging to hear in the interim. But, you hit the nail on the head.

Q4-06 for these? Here we are, so we shall see what the big new Apple announcements are for January, 07. Then we'll watch for what happens with Leopard in Q2-07 and ultimately when/whether DP will embrace these CPU resources.

"Anticipation is keeping me way-ay-ay-ay-aiting..."

What does it mean when we read that an application supports multiple processors? Assuming the OS supports multiple processors, is it necessary that an application does so as well?

pdube wrote:What does it mean when we read that an application supports multiple processors? Assuming the OS supports multiple processors, is it necessary that an application does so as well?

It's very important that an app support multiple processors as well. How the app doles out its workload to the computer plays a big part on how quickly it works. If an app only "sees" one processor, then it will not likely make the best use of the resources. I know some guys with Quad PPCs who are having trouble with some apps because during some of their most demanding tasks, they only see one of the four processors doing all the work.

Moving an app not optimized for multiple processors to a Quad is "sort of" like moving yourself out of a studio apartment into a 4 bedroom house and still living in one room.

Fortunately, most of what we use in the way of DAWs is working well on Duals, Core Duos and Quads.

pdube wrote:What does it mean when we read that an application supports multiple processors? Assuming the OS supports multiple processors, is it necessary that an application does so as well?

Specific instruction sets have to be emplemented within the application itself... In other words... the code has to be re-written to take advantage of multiple cores. It can be done but @ a cost... TIME! Man, I really envy guy's that can sit there and type out code for all those hours and hours... I guess they are just as crazy as us musicians trying to catch that perfect performance.... But really, It's just a matter of time till we have some really wicked power @ our grasps and it seems it will still just boil down to plain ol' PERFORMANCE hehe...
I can't wait though!

Hey-- and with Apple already updating the Intels like mad these days (new laptops today!) it will be interesting to see what happens by January. Machines are clearly capable now, so maybe Apple itself will put the heat under developers to get things rolling-- again, they could lead the way with their own software to set an example...

I wish I could find the site link a while back with Apple talking about about all the 64-bit threading possible with Panther and Tiger. Wonder what happened?

Oh. I never looked into it, but I guess I figured that the OS doled out the workload to the hardware. I'd love to read about it if someone knew of a good link that gives a high-level explanation--as opposed to a nuts and bolts one--of how multi-processing works.