“A new Xeon processor that quietly began shipping from Intel Corp. this month could find its way into a model of Apple Computer’s forthcoming 8-core professional desktop systems,” AppleInsider reports. “The new 2.0GHz quad-core ‘Clovertown’ chip has been officially dubbed the Xeon E5335 by Intel, filling the gap between the chipmaker’s existing 2.33 GHz Xeon E5345 and 1.86 GHz Xeon E5320 offerings.”
AppleInsider reports, “Like the 2.33GHz Xeon E5345 and the 2.66GHz Xeon E5355 introduced last month, the latest member of the Clovertown family features 8MB of L2 cache and operates on a 1333MHz front-side bus — making it drop-in compatible with Apple’s existing Mac Pro professional desktop architecture.”
“People familiar with the subject have said the Cupertino, Calif.-based company holds plans to release of new version of its Mac Pro desktop that will pack two quad-core Xeon chips for a total of 8-cores of raw processing power,” AppleInsider reports.
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Early debut for new Intel quad-core Xeon chip – December 12, 2006
Unofficial eight-core Apple Mac Pro benchmarks – November 15, 2006
Intel launches quad-core processors – November 15, 2006
RUMOR: Apple prepping monster eight-core Xeon ‘Clovertown’ Mac Pro – October 26, 2006
Intel pledges 80-core processor within five years – September 26, 2006
AnandTech upgrades and tests Octo-Core ‘Clovertown’ Apple Mac Pro – September 13, 2006
schwing!!!
fast fast
now if only we could get the disk i/o faster… we could probably make use of that raw horsepower…
Meanwhile, up in Redmond, Microsoft continues to abuse its monopoly position and continues to get away with it.
Oops! Wrong story!
Here’s to hoping and all the cash burning a hole in my pocket! I bought Final Cut Studio 5.1 to run on one.
I hope, I hope, I hope!
My MDN magic word is “order”, as in, I’m gonna be ordering one!
Uh, they DO know it’s CloverTON and not CloverTOWN, right?
Based on the fact that few, if any, software titles out there (even professional grade) are able to fully take advantage of 4 core workstation systems; and since further saturating the already overburdened MacPro’s FSB with double the cores makes no sense either, I’ll ‘go out on a limb’ here and say that Clovertown won’t be showing up on an OEM MacPro (upgraders, feel free to void warranties at will).
However, there is a product that could have the software support, even if the FSB issue would stiull remain, and that’s XServe. In fact, with the 4 core Clovertown’s speed being lower (2Ghz) than the fastest dual core Woodcrests currently in XServe (2.66-3Ghz), the problem of over heating an XServe by doubling the cores is also minimized.
There are probably as-many-or-more dedictated server tasks (and software) that benefit from more cores running at slower clockspeeds – even with the constrained FSB – as there are those that are happy with the higher single threaded performance of a faster clocked Woodcrest. ‘Server people’ would be willing to pay the expected premium for the former as well. Meanwhile, for a workstation/desktop, more cores is simply overkill right now – the small jump in performance is not worth the extra money spent.
Of course, Apple could offer a Clovertown MacPro just to grab some bragging rights, but that would be a waste of what will undoubtedly be scarce supplies of that CPU. If they’re going to build anything with it, it would make more sense to put it into something that will actually sell consistently and make some money.
A 1U 8-core server that’s actually affordable could be a special offering – a real coupe for Apple. An 8 core MacPro is an adolescent indulgence.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” />
Kevin – Intel refers to the processor as ‘Clovertown’ in their literature. For example, check page 8 of the Quad Core “Competitive Comparison” pdf on their website.
Everyone thinks it will go into the top-end model first… Why can’t Apple offer the low-end Mac Pro model with a SINGLE quad-core Xeon? Since it’s 2.0 GHz, it would replace the current DUAL dual-core 2.0 GHz Mac Pro. The 2.66 GHz and 3.0 GHz Mac Pro models can stay DUAL dual-core to take advantage of the faster clock speed, and perhaps those models can get a speed bump if faster dual-core Xeons existing. The low end model will benefit from lower cost of production (hopefully) due to only having one chip and less cooling hardware.
Except maybe in the XServe, an “octo” core Mac seems like a bit of overkill right now.
How can speed improvements ever be considered overkill? Over priced maybe, but not overkill; faster is always better. Every second I have to wait for something is a second wasted. Lay it on me Apple! And put them in a MacBook Pro while you’re at it.
It will be curious to see how Leopard might take advantage of multi-core systems. I’m betting Apple will be years ahead of Microsoft in this regard. In fact, they true benefit of Leopard may be it’s advanced support for multi-core chips.
Man, it’s unbelievable. In a short 18 months, Intel has release at least 4 major product lines. All applicable for the Mac line.
Compared that to 2 years ago with IBM and Moto going nowhere with their CPUs.
Yes it will take longer for the software to catch up with the CPU improvements but the devs won’t update the SW until there are machines to run them.
“Except maybe in the XServe, an “octo” core Mac seems like a bit of overkill right now.”
When running AE, FCP or a 3D, there is NEVER overkill
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Yes, 8 cores at 3 GHz would certainly be faster than 4 cores at 3 GHz, though NOT twice as fast due to system and software limitations. However, the quad-core Xeon is “only” at 2 GHz. So considering the limitations in hardware and software that make 8 cores less efficient than 4, would 8 cores at 2 GHz be that much faster than 4 cores at 3 GHz (or faster than 3 GHz if newer chips are now available)?
I think Apple will stick to 4 cores running at the fastest available speed (for the high end Mac Pro), at least for the first half of 2007. WWDC 2007 would be a good time to release the Octo Mac Pro. Leopard will be out, the remaining “pro” apps will have gone Universal (hopefully), and Intel will probably have 3 GHz quad-core chips by that time.
“Intel will probably have 3 GHz quad-core chips by that time.”
“speed being lower (2Ghz) than the fastest dual core Woodcrests currently in XServe (2.66-3Ghz),”
“, the quad-core Xeon is “only” at 2 GHz. “
Dell is already selling 2.66GHz dual processor quad core machines.
“Man, it’s unbelievable. In a short 18 months, Intel has release at least 4 major product lines. All applicable for the Mac line.”
Welcome to the WinTel world. Newer and faster processors coming along every few months is certainly an unremarkable occurrence.
“I’m betting Apple will be years ahead of Microsoft in this regard”
You’d have to go back a long way in history to find a version of either Windows or Mac OS without SMP support.
“Of course, Apple could offer a Clovertown MacPro just to grab some bragging rights, “
What, to brag that they’d just matched Dell? They need to do this to even keep up.
The standard PC model is Intel announces that a processor is shipping, same day all major vendors announce models that support it. Apple needs to get to the point where it can do that too.
The problem with increasing the number of cores over the coming years and achieving the promise of greater performance is essentially one of learning to do concurrent programming right. This is going to be THE grand challenge for computer science and computer design in the coming decades.
I would love to see a discussion of the advance of computer languages, programming tools and some benchmarks, but there has been little discussion — but some — that I can find on the subject.
My interest is in scientific computing and those sorts of problems are usually massively parallel. So are applications that are image or graphics based. We need tools to get at the promised computing power. If we had some decent tools, the Mac Pro would sell a lot more units.
Odyssey67 said: “Based on the fact that few, if any, software titles out there (even professional grade) are able to fully take advantage of 4 core workstation systems; and since further saturating the already overburdened MacPro’s FSB with double the cores makes no sense either, I’ll ‘go out on a limb’ here and say that Clovertown won’t be showing up on an OEM MacPro (upgraders, feel free to void warranties at will).”
Odyssey, perhaps in your line of work, more cores on a desktop is not advantageous, but in the core Mac Pro workstation market, i.e. high end 3D graphics, the more cores, the better…
2D graphics, using apps such as Photoshop and the like, are perfectly fine on an iMac, but for 3D graphics, which is a rapidly growing market which Apple is very noticeably paying sharp attention to, the more cores the better…
I work using modo, Lightwave, and Vue, and I mainly use modo for rendering. This is where more cores make a huge difference… when I am modelling, the extra cores do little to speed things up, but when rendering, every core counts, as each core is another thread, and the more threads, the faster the render completed. The faster a render completes, the faster my job is done. As my scenes tend to be filled with hundreds of millions of polys, use environmental lighting with an HDR image, etc., more cores makes a huge difference!
It also would be more advantageous to have more cores in a single machine, on the same bus than to have multiple machines, with separate buses, for rendering, though when modo does add network rendering, and I do upgrade to a Mac Pro, my G5 Quad will be assigned to network rendering.
I for one am fairly confident that Apple will release a Cloverton based “Octal” Mac Pro very soon.
For quite awhile, this will be the equivalent of having a car with 2,000 horsepower to drive to work-where you gonna use it? Wonderful to dream about, but pointless to buy.
I hate the fact that every time we now get a new processor… we have to say ” Dell had that 2 weeks ago” or “That is EXACTLY the same chip that is in the new HP’s”.
I love the fact that we are getting th world’s fastest processors right when they come out, but we have lost something unique… we have lost something special…. and now the only reason we can say that our machines are better, is if we are only talking about the software!
🙁 anyway, it just bothers me a bit. I still love macs, and will never buy anything else.
“For quite awhile, this will be the equivalent of having a car with 2,000 horsepower to drive to work-where you gonna use it? Wonderful to dream about, but pointless to buy.”
People said the same thing about 1ghz Powermacs several years ago. If this is your honest opinion, you know nothing about the computer industry. New software is always pushing the limit, and draining more of our processors.
Jay: “For quite awhile, this will be the equivalent of having a car with 2,000 horsepower to drive to work-where you gonna use it? Wonderful to dream about, but pointless to buy.”
Yeah, if you haven’t the need… I do 3D graphics and need as many cores, and the faster clock speeds that I can get.
I happen to choose Mac over Windows… FOR THE OS… but I do have the option, and if Apple were to ignore the high end workstation market, I would have little choice but to go over to the dark side.
Someone is smoking something.
Some things to point out.
The “quad-core Xeon processor” tops out at 2.33 not 2.0
The “quad-core computer” that Dell sells has two “dual-core processors”
If anyone cared that Dell has a “2.66 quad-core computer” Apple has had a quad 3.0 for months.
My bad, I misread the article, the “quad-core processor” goes to 2.66
“If anyone cared that Dell has a “2.66 quad-core computer” Apple has had a quad 3.0 for months.”
That’s 2x 2.66 DUAL processor QUAD cores, 8 cores total. Which Apple model should I order for the 3.0GHz DUAL processor QUAD core, 8 cores total?
“Someone is smoking something.”
Name: Bruce
“I love the fact that we are getting th world’s fastest processors right when they come out, “
Well, everybody else gets that, you have to wait, for some inexplicable reason.
I don’t like the term “octo-core”. I wanna see Apple call this thing a “V-8 Mac”
We’ll get to the “Hemi” part in the next model.
The MAJOR announcement of the soon-to-be-released OS X’s secret function will be its ability to fully utilize multi-core/processor hardware without special application coding for it.
This will be the destruction of Microsoft’s future as programmers for OS X don’t need special abilities or knowledge to move their aps to multi-core speeds.
Just as OS X has Core-Video, Core-Audio and Core-Animation to handle those tasks internally, it will now feature something similar to Core-Core, an internal data traffic cop that auto-detects the CPU configuration and delegates data/instruction flow. It will have a generic/default mode to utilize the multi-cores in single-cpu aps as well as being able to be easily programmed for custom applications. For example, it can offer preset modes for data-intensive or floating-point-intensive situations without the programmer needing to do all of the necessary machine-level coding. Another mode could be set by the user via OS X for “Priority Ap” which reserves and dedicates one (or more) cores to a specific application, including the OS itself if the user wants.
With Core-Core, OS X can now offer Protected Cores as well as protected memory, and hot-swapable daughter (CPU) boards.
But, Core-Core’s most innovative strength will be its “Auto X-Grid” mode that utilizes Rendezvous for detecting other Auto X-Grid enabled Macs on the network and automatically establish a super-computer environment. No special aps or programming required. All of those wasted clock cycles in the other Macs in the office stuck doing email, could now contribute to the grid. For “flash and wow”, a screen saver would graphically display the total grid traffic flow and how much that particular computer is contributing.
Auto X-Grid will also be able to create Network RAIDs for data safety, and have Macs baby-sit each other on the grid, detecting possible freezes and hard drive failures via individual behavioral changes, even automatically temporarily moving data to a safer hard drive if failure is imminent.
MS Vista will soon be synonymous with making an 8-cylinder sports car run on 1 cylinder… with a flat tire.